Standards of proof

At first Hebert believed that international law was broad enough to cover the defendants aggressive crimes. Then he came to feel that probably at this stage in international law, an extraordinary standard of proof should be exacted, and a "most liberal application of the rule of reasonable doubt in favor of the defendants" ... 

NMR and crystallography should be viewed as complementary rather than competing methods. Different kinds of structural information can be obtained, and information gleaned from one technique can aid in the process for the other. Still, NMR is the younger sister in the family and must meet a higher standard of proof to justify big spending and job security in corporate research and development. 

Standard of proof demanded (a) A formal calculation of power technically needs to take into account the standard of proof being required for a declaration of significance. The usual criterion is that the 95 per cent confidence interval excludes a zero effect (a =0.05). If an experiment was designed to achieve a higher standards of proof (e.g. a = 0.02), a 98 per cent Cl will have to be used and this will be wider than the standard 95 per cent CL The wider interval is then more likely to cross the zero line and so power will be lower. So, requiring a lower risk of a false positive (reducing alpha) will lead to less power. 

The alpha value was included in the previous discussion, simply for the sake of completeness, but from this point on, we will ignore the question of standards of proof and simply assume that the normal standard is used (i.e. a = 0.05 a 95 per cent Cl is used or significance accepted if P < 0.05). Figure 8.3 shows the inputs into a formal calculation of the power of an experiment and the effects they would have. 

When planning experiments, it is worth remembering that, as the number of treatments increases, there is a very steep increase in the number of comparisons that Tukey s test would make and the individual comparisons will have to be carried out to correspondingly high standards of proof. 

When Tukey s or Dunnett s test make multiple comparisons, each of these is performed to a higher than normal standard of proof, so that the accumulative risk of generating any false positives remains at the usual 5 per cent. 

What the Bonferroni correction does is to raise the standard of proof for all the individual tests. Each test is then less likely to produce a false positive and the complete series of analyses will jointly generate a 5 per cent risk. 

The Bonferroni correction raises the standard of proof required for each individual test. This has the effect of maintaining the overall risk of any false positives at 5 per cent, but reduces statistical power. 

Check what types of references are allowed as standard of proof for substantiation of claim, e.g. are data on file allowed ... 

Table 6.1 Standards of proof allowed to substantiate promotional claims6 46...

All statements in promotional material must be in line with the latest Swissmedic-approved prescribing information. Standards of proof must be published... 

Another important distinction between criminal and civil cases is the threshold burden of proof that must be reached in order to prove the case against the defendant. In a criminal case, the State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt . In civil actions, the plaintiff must prove his/her case on a balance of probabilities . The standard of proof for criminal matters is higher, essentially because an individual s life or liberty may be at risk. 

Even if we accept the limitations to which equivalence trials are subject, if our purpose is to prove that two treatments are exactly equal it does not matter how weak our standards of proof are, we shall not be able to do so. Consider case D in Figure 15.1. The confidence limits for the true treatment difference lie well within the limits of equivalence but it is clear that we could establish much narrower limits of equivalence which the confidence limits would exceed. One way to deal with narrower limits of equivalence would be to demand lower standards of proof. For example, instead of using 90% confidence intervals we could use less stringent 50% limits in an attempt to match narrower limits of equivalence. Alternatively, we could increase the sample size. However, whatever we do we shall never succeed in shrinking the confidence intervals to a point. Hence a proof of exact equality is impossible. 

The fundamental relationship between the natural and social sciences is the use of the scientific method and the rigorous standards of proof that both disciplines require. This emphasis on organization and evidence separates the sciences from the arts and humanities. Natural science, particularly biology, is closely related to social science, the study of human behavior. Biological and environmental factors often dictate human behavior and accurate assessment of behavior requires a sound understanding of biological factors. 

Negligence is proven if the answer to both questions is yes . Negligence has to be proved on the balance of probabilities , as opposed to the standard of proof required in criminal case of beyond reasonable doubt . It is clear that pure accidents will not support action for negligence and damages. Teachers are not expected to do the impossible, they cannot protect children from every conceivable danger at all times, they are not automatically to blame. 

This traditional reserve may have been compounded by the experience of the yellow rain controversy, in which the evidence, reports and testimony proferred in support of the Reagan administration s charges were subjected to a withering critique. Douglas Feith, then Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, despaired of the critics who focused upon a thin slice of the total body of evidence and say that it does not prove the case , and who insisted upon standards of proof unrealistic even for scientific laboratories, let alone the international diplomatic community . He contended that these demands for absolute proof reflected The mentality that fears the effects on the arms control process of highlighting treaty violations more than it fears the harm caused by the violations themselves... 

A different example of inattention to local failure is a curious replay in the Columbia disaster of the inversion of logic first seen in the Challenger disaster. As pressure mounted in both events, operations personnel were required to drop their usual standard of proof, prove that it is safe to fly, and to adopt the opposite standard, prove that it is unsafe to fly. A system that insists on proof that it is safe to fly is a system in which there is a preoccupation with failure. But a system in which people have to prove that it is unsafe to fly is a system preoccupied with success. 

The justification for the difference in standards of proof is, however, not entirely clear. It may have been a response to b. and c. above and/or may have occurred because the concept of plant-plant allelopathic interactions challenged the long held paradigm of resource competition. In addition, organic substances involved in plant-plant allelopathic interactions can be exceedingly ephemeral, i.e., are readily metabolized, leached, volatilized, and/or bound (sorbed). Interestingly enough. 

If the employer has followed these steps, then the Tribunal must uphold his decision although they may not necessarily have come to the same view themselves. Further, the standard of proof which an employer must meet is only that he should be satisfied on tire balance of probabilities, and not beyond all reasonable doubt. These principles have been slightly eroded by subsequent legislation in that it is not essential for the last two elements to be proved but it will be very much in the employer s favoiu if he can do so. 

Standard of proof Must be proved b ond reasonable doubt. However, for prosecutions under section 40 of the HSWA the defendant need only prove his case on the balance of probabilities Need only be proved on the balance of probability... 

Bystanders can obtain compensation from railroads for most of the harm suffered as a result of railroad accidents through state common laws of negligence. In most cases, the standard of proof required is quite low. The mere fact that an accident occurred is usually sufficient to establish negligence. The law will therefore act in a similar fashion to strict liability, and hence removes any market failure. 

Civil law as it may apply to road safety is hkely to be based on a breach of statutory duty or neghgence. The burden of proof is on the injured party, who may take action against an organisation (such as a highway authority) for a breach of statutory duty or negU-gence. A case must be proven on a balance of probabilities, while a higher standard of proof is required in criminal courts ( beyond aU reasonable doubt ). 

---