RE: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L digest 654

["Chaffin, Mark J. \(HSC\)" <Mark-Chaffin@xxxxxxxxx>]

No question that the statistical reasoning was probably flawed.  No
question that mothers' psychological profiles are an unreliable way of
diagnosing pediatric condition falsification behavior (which I agree is
the main issue, not syndromes).  No question that we should revisit
determinations based predominantly on what we now believe were flawed
facts or flawed reasoning.  But if we sanctioned everyone who, in good
faith, ever gave testimony that was later determined to have been wrong,
who would be left holding a license?  Probably not me.  I'll confess to
holding opinions in the past which I now believe were wrong, and I fully
expect that in the future I'll feel similarly about opinions I hold
today.  This should be expected.  What about all that hymenal opening
size testimony given in all those sex abuse cases?  And this is not to
mention the defense experts, many of whom would not be able to get a job
working at McDonalds if we held them to this standard.

MC


Mark Chaffin, Ph.D.
Professor of Pediatrics
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
P.O. Box 26901; CSC 225
Oklahoma City, OK  73190
(405) 271-8858