“35% of the excellent cases were deemed unknowns, as opposed to only 18% of the poorest cases. This was the exact opposite of the result predicted by skeptics, who usually argued unknowns were poorer quality cases involving unreliable witnesses that could be solved if only better information were available.”
This confuses me. I’ll have a look at the report. Do you know what proportion of the unknowns are poor cases as opposed to excellent cases (I would guess there are far more poor cases than excellent cases).
This confuses me. I’ll have a look at the report. Do you know what proportion of the unknowns are poor cases as opposed to excellent cases (I would guess there are far more poor cases than excellent cases).