tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515829.post7956504745969073496..comments2024-03-29T05:15:40.793-07:00Comments on Irons in the Fire: Since this seems a 'bash on clowns' day, let's move to forensicsFirehandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04562365951182027709noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515829.post-91653274471899034712009-07-29T06:20:46.591-07:002009-07-29T06:20:46.591-07:00The scientific method, properly carried out, prett...The scientific method, properly carried out, pretty much doubts EVERYTHING until proven; and 'proof' involves hard evidence and/or observation. And <i>that</i> finding is subject to change if new information becomes available.<br /><br />Kind of interesting, we spent years with movies and tv telling us how tool marks and such were 'proof', and we believed it; now you've got cases being lost because "Your evidence and experts don't look enough like what I see on 'CSI'." And it turns out both, in far too many cases, have either little or not enough grounding in fact to be trusted the way they are. And 'CSI' & such are just full of crap.Firehandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04562365951182027709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515829.post-76679089731152184432009-07-29T02:44:11.425-07:002009-07-29T02:44:11.425-07:00When my wife gets a new class to teach, she uses t...When my wife gets a new class to teach, she uses the first couple of lessons to properly explain that all scientific theories are provisional. <br /><br />They are the explanations which currently best account for the observations (CO2 fails to explain 80% of climate observations).<br /><br />She also explains that science is "value laden" it is not somehow separated from society and fashions.<br /><br />Theories can only explain those observations that have been made. Everyone has limited time and budget, so observations are necessarily limited, or even worse, targetted.<br /><br />In some fields, eg drugs testing, the test methods may be layed down by statute, which itself may be based on a fallacy e.g. that the response of an easily kept animal will reflect the response of a human.<br /><br />For almost all of her students, this news comes as a major suprise<br /><br />most jurors will be simillarAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515829.post-68793818912217108942009-07-28T16:19:26.859-07:002009-07-28T16:19:26.859-07:00So, something as 'simple' as the science a...So, something as 'simple' as the science about tooling marks on a little bullet can't be nailed down for certain.<br /><br />Meanwhile the 'science' of the extremely complex issue of 'climate change' is a forgone conclusion?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515829.post-9711351799079176402009-07-28T07:54:58.125-07:002009-07-28T07:54:58.125-07:00Of course they don't want to go back and have ...Of course they don't want to go back and have other tests performed. They just hate finding out they were wrong. The fear of that over-rides their pursuit of justice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515829.post-56306517415701272662009-07-28T07:23:57.731-07:002009-07-28T07:23:57.731-07:00Hmmmm. It would seem that insisting that wild-ass ...Hmmmm. It would seem that insisting that wild-ass science claims in the courtroom have serious proof has some unintended consequences for things everybody thinks are scientific. <br />IIRC the whole idea of fingerprints being unique has also not been verified.<br />And this business of tool marks, then, if I'm forming chambers on, say 1911 barrels, and I do two barrels in succession with the same tool, they should be remarkably similar, probably similar enough for the expert who is laboring under his own conceptions could believe that the pattern from one is really from the other. <br />Of course how often will it happen that two people with sequential 1911 barrels will be in the same place and have other evidence implicating both?<br />So, despite what people think from watching CSI Pixley, there really ought to be something other than this one bit of science linking the accused to the crime.Windy Wilsonnoreply@blogger.com