Quote:
Originally Posted by navillusc  If you 'hover' over that icon, it says "confused" and I highlighted the statement that "confused" me. Sorry if I confused you, too. 
I would be interested in knowing 'why' the "scientific community" is 'allowing' testing it 'knows' is "not perfect" to gain "acceptance" in the first place...if you know the answer, though.
Is there concern in the "scientific community" that "acceptance" might lead to complacency as more and more in the "scientific community" begin to "accept" the test results, perhaps as fact, regardless of whether or not the test is proven to be accurate?
Just thinking in print... |
Sorry, I didn't hover over the icon, LOL! I just read one of the papers I referred to, by the way, to see how they describe the accuracy of the MARS test, and they stated that it is 99% accurate for purebred dogs and 90% accurate for mixed breed dogs. That's based on testing dogs of known pedigree. So long as the papers state the degree of accuracy of the MARS test, that's a sufficient disclaimer, and I don't think it will cause scientists to become complacent about the accuracy of the test.