Author Topic: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method  (Read 20189 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

debunker

  • Guest
Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« on: April 23, 2013, 04:31:06 PM »
The Forensic or Scientific method is the only reliable way to assess the evidence from our senses about the world.

They work like this:

Assumption of Socratic ignorance- currently we know nothing about "x"

Someone makes an assertion that "x" is "y".

Now make a null statement ""x" is NOT "y""

Search for evidence that "x" is "y".

 If such evidence is not found, the null position holds- "x" is NOT "y". QED

If such evidence is found, then the null assumption has been proved wrong and we can say that the TRUTH is that "x" is "y". QED

Return to top and find another assertion to test.



This is how truth is found in courts and in Scientific investigations.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2013, 05:44:04 PM »
The Forensic or Scientific method is the only reliable way to assess the evidence from our senses about the world.

They work like this:

Assumption of Socratic ignorance- currently we know nothing about "x"

Someone makes an assertion that "x" is "y".

Now make a null statement ""x" is NOT "y""

Search for evidence that "x" is "y".

 If such evidence is not found, the null position holds- "x" is NOT "y". QED

If such evidence is found, then the null assumption has been proved wrong and we can say that the TRUTH is that "x" is "y". QED

Return to top and find another assertion to test.



This is how truth is found in courts and in Scientific investigations.

That's how truth is found in courts ?

I have a hard time envisioning any barrister for the defence or prosection using that little gem, when asking the Jury to come to a guilty or innocent decision

Unless you can present a case that would convince the average 11 men and women, good and true, on a Jury ...  then you present no case at all 

I really don't see any point in this thread at all  (  unless you just want us to see how terribly clever you are )

My guess is that your post is utterly unintelligible to almost everyone else here ...  it certainly is to me

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2013, 05:53:32 PM »
The Forensic or Scientific method is the only reliable way to assess the evidence from our senses about the world.

They work like this:

Assumption of Socratic ignorance- currently we know nothing about "x"

Someone makes an assertion that "x" is "y".

Now make a null statement ""x" is NOT "y""

Search for evidence that "x" is "y".

 If such evidence is not found, the null position holds- "x" is NOT "y". QED

If such evidence is found, then the null assumption has been proved wrong and we can say that the TRUTH is that "x" is "y". QED

Return to top and find another assertion to test.



This is how truth is found in courts and in Scientific investigations.

That's how truth is found in courts ?

I have a hard time envisioning any barrister for the defence or prosection using that little gem, when asking the Jury to come to a guilty or innocent decision

Unless you can present a case that would convince the average 11 men and women, good and true, on a Jury ...  then you present no case at all 

I really don't see any point in this thread at all  (  unless you just want us to see how terribly clever you are )

My guess is that your post is utterly unintelligible to almost everyone else here ...  it certainly is to me

It is the theory underlying the principle of Innocent til proven guilty.

Charge someone

Assume innocence

Produce evidence

Test evidence

Does evidence overturn Innocence

Seek more evidence

Return to the start.


I am not trying to be clever, merely pointing out how science and forensics use the same method I f testing putative truth.

If you do not understand this method, you will fail to understand what truth and evid ence beyond reasonable doubt mean.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2013, 06:36:11 PM »
The Forensic or Scientific method is the only reliable way to assess the evidence from our senses about the world.

They work like this:

Assumption of Socratic ignorance- currently we know nothing about "x"

Someone makes an assertion that "x" is "y".

Now make a null statement ""x" is NOT "y""

Search for evidence that "x" is "y".

 If such evidence is not found, the null position holds- "x" is NOT "y". QED

If such evidence is found, then the null assumption has been proved wrong and we can say that the TRUTH is that "x" is "y". QED

Return to top and find another assertion to test.



This is how truth is found in courts and in Scientific investigations.

That's how truth is found in courts ?

I have a hard time envisioning any barrister for the defence or prosection using that little gem, when asking the Jury to come to a guilty or innocent decision

Unless you can present a case that would convince the average 11 men and women, good and true, on a Jury ...  then you present no case at all 

I really don't see any point in this thread at all  (  unless you just want us to see how terribly clever you are )

My guess is that your post is utterly unintelligible to almost everyone else here ...  it certainly is to me

It is the theory underlying the principle of Innocent til proven guilty.

Charge someone

Assume innocence

Produce evidence

Test evidence

Does evidence overturn Innocence

Seek more evidence

Return to the start.


I am not trying to be clever, merely pointing out how science and forensics use the same method I f testing putative truth.

If you do not understand this method, you will fail to understand what truth and evid ence beyond reasonable doubt mean.

That's better, now I understand

Now,  let's take your abstract post and apply it directly to the case we are discussing here

In the first instance,  perhaps we could use your scientific formula to evaluate the charge that Martin Grime  'cued'  his dogs

As the formula dictates,  we must assume his innocence

Since you have consistantly made the charge,  I will leave it to you to proceed with the next step  ... produce the evidence

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2013, 07:02:40 PM »
The Forensic or Scientific method is the only reliable way to assess the evidence from our senses about the world.

They work like this:

Assumption of Socratic ignorance- currently we know nothing about "x"

Someone makes an assertion that "x" is "y".

Now make a null statement ""x" is NOT "y""

Search for evidence that "x" is "y".

 If such evidence is not found, the null position holds- "x" is NOT "y". QED

If such evidence is found, then the null assumption has been proved wrong and we can say that the TRUTH is that "x" is "y". QED

Return to top and find another assertion to test.



This is how truth is found in courts and in Scientific investigations.

That's how truth is found in courts ?

I have a hard time envisioning any barrister for the defence or prosection using that little gem, when asking the Jury to come to a guilty or innocent decision

Unless you can present a case that would convince the average 11 men and women, good and true, on a Jury ...  then you present no case at all 

I really don't see any point in this thread at all  (  unless you just want us to see how terribly clever you are )

My guess is that your post is utterly unintelligible to almost everyone else here ...  it certainly is to me

It is the theory underlying the principle of Innocent til proven guilty.

Charge someone

Assume innocence

Produce evidence

Test evidence

Does evidence overturn Innocence

Seek more evidence

Return to the start.


I am not trying to be clever, merely pointing out how science and forensics use the same method I f testing putative truth.

If you do not understand this method, you will fail to understand what truth and evid ence beyond reasonable doubt mean.

That's better, now I understand

Now,  let's take your abstract post and apply it directly to the case we are discussing here

In the first instance,  perhaps we could use your scientific formula to evaluate the charge that Martin Grime  'cued'  his dogs

As the formula dictates,  we must assume his innocence

Since you have consistantly made the charge,  I will leave it to you to proceed with the next step  ... produce the evidence

He is not on trial. His claims about dog alerts are addressed by science. The null position is either "dogs are error free" in whichcase we would seek errors or " dogs give no reliable indication of cadaver odor" in which case we would look for exceptions where dogs have alerted correctly

The question then gradually changes- "dogs are better than chance" or "dogs are better than 90% accurate." And so on.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2013, 07:12:55 PM »
What was the point of bringing an abstract scientific formula to the board  if you are not prepared to apply it to aspects of the particular case we are focussed on  ?

Martin Grime stands charged  ( by you )  of cueing his dogs  (  a rather serious charge, as it happens,  because if he did do what you accuse him of then he perverted the course of justice in the case of a missing three year old )

Please use the scientific formula you have highlighted in order to process the  serious charge you have made

...  we are at the point where you are required to produce evidence

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2013, 07:18:23 PM »
However, there is another set of hypotheses.

Null Hypothesis :   The dogs indicted no cadaver odour.

Alternate Hypothesis : The dogs detected cadaver odour.

A one tailed test, no pun intended.


Results of the forensics : INCONCLUSIVE.

i.e. D.N.A. match, insufficient.


Meanwhile, the use of dogs continues worldwide by police, including looking for dead bodies.

Why ?

Easy, because they are found to be reliable.

Moral, easy. Merely because the D.N.A. was inconclusive does not mean the dogs were wrong in what they indicated.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2013, 07:18:59 PM »
What was the point of bringing an abstract scientific formula to the board  if you are not prepared to apply it to aspects of the particular case we are focussed on  ?

Martin Grime stands charged  ( by you )  of cueing his dogs  (  a rather serious charge, as it happens,  because if he did do what you accuse him of then he perverted the course of justice in the case of a missing three year old )

Please use the scientific formula you have highlighted in order to process the  serious charge you have made

...  we are at the point where you are required to produce evidence

I have not said that he cued the dogs.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2013, 07:20:44 PM »
However, there is another set of hypotheses.

Null Hypothesis :   The dogs indicted no cadaver odour.

Alternate Hypothesis : The dogs detected cadaver odour.

A one tailed test, no pun intended.


Results of the forensics : INCONCLUSIVE.

i.e. D.N.A. match, insufficient.


Meanwhile, the use of dogs continues worldwide by police, including looking for dead bodies.

Why ?

Easy, because they are found to be reliable.

Moral, easy. Merely because the D.N.A. was inconclusive does not mean the dogs were wrong in what they indicated.

Nor does it confirm that cadaver was present.

Thanks for agreeing.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2013, 07:45:39 PM »
However, there is another set of hypotheses.

Null Hypothesis :   The dogs indicted no cadaver odour.

Alternate Hypothesis : The dogs detected cadaver odour.

A one tailed test, no pun intended.


Results of the forensics : INCONCLUSIVE.

i.e. D.N.A. match, insufficient.


Meanwhile, the use of dogs continues worldwide by police, including looking for dead bodies.

Why ?

Easy, because they are found to be reliable.

Moral, easy. Merely because the D.N.A. was inconclusive does not mean the dogs were wrong in what they indicated.

Nor does it confirm that cadaver was present.

Thanks for agreeing.


Didn't quite say that, did I ?


So why do Police forces around the world use dogs to detect bodies ?

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2013, 07:48:35 PM »
2nd pair of Hypothesis Tests.

Null Hypothesis : There was no abduction.

Alternate Hypothesis : There was an abduction.


Now can someone disprove this initial Hypothesis ?

 >@@(*&)



debunker

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2013, 07:49:31 PM »
However, there is another set of hypotheses.

Null Hypothesis :   The dogs indicted no cadaver odour.

Alternate Hypothesis : The dogs detected cadaver odour.

A one tailed test, no pun intended.


Results of the forensics : INCONCLUSIVE.

i.e. D.N.A. match, insufficient.


Meanwhile, the use of dogs continues worldwide by police, including looking for dead bodies.

Why ?

Easy, because they are found to be reliable.

Moral, easy. Merely because the D.N.A. was inconclusive does not mean the dogs were wrong in what they indicated.

Nor does it confirm that cadaver was present.

Thanks for agreeing.


Didn't quite say that, did I ?


So why do Police forces around the world use dogs to detect bodies ?

Because dogs are very god at finding whole bodies, but less good at alerting to traces.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2013, 07:57:35 PM »
What was the point of bringing an abstract scientific formula to the board  if you are not prepared to apply it to aspects of the particular case we are focussed on  ?

Martin Grime stands charged  ( by you )  of cueing his dogs  (  a rather serious charge, as it happens,  because if he did do what you accuse him of then he perverted the course of justice in the case of a missing three year old )

Please use the scientific formula you have highlighted in order to process the  serious charge you have made

...  we are at the point where you are required to produce evidence

I have not said that he cued the dogs.

Yes you have

On the thread most active today, for instance,  you have made numerous posts accusing Mr Grime of 'obviously' cueing his dogs ...  of 'pressuring'  them ...  and of 'forcing'  them

I  think you should follow up your charge by applying your own scientific formula

...  or else withdraw the charge and allow that there is no evidence to support it 

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2013, 08:00:34 PM »
However, there is another set of hypotheses.

Null Hypothesis :   The dogs indicted no cadaver odour.

Alternate Hypothesis : The dogs detected cadaver odour.

A one tailed test, no pun intended.


Results of the forensics : INCONCLUSIVE.

i.e. D.N.A. match, insufficient.


Meanwhile, the use of dogs continues worldwide by police, including looking for dead bodies.

Why ?

Easy, because they are found to be reliable.

Moral, easy. Merely because the D.N.A. was inconclusive does not mean the dogs were wrong in what they indicated.

Nor does it confirm that cadaver was present.

Thanks for agreeing.


Didn't quite say that, did I ?


So why do Police forces around the world use dogs to detect bodies ?

Because dogs are very god at finding whole bodies, but less good at alerting to traces.

Indeed. >@@(*&)

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2013, 08:08:25 PM »
What was the point of bringing an abstract scientific formula to the board  if you are not prepared to apply it to aspects of the particular case we are focussed on  ?

Martin Grime stands charged  ( by you )  of cueing his dogs  (  a rather serious charge, as it happens,  because if he did do what you accuse him of then he perverted the course of justice in the case of a missing three year old )

Please use the scientific formula you have highlighted in order to process the  serious charge you have made

...  we are at the point where you are required to produce evidence

I have not said that he cued the dogs.

Yes you have

On the thread most active today, for instance,  you have made numerous posts accusing Mr Grime of 'obviously' cueing his dogs ...  of 'pressuring'  them ...  and of 'forcing'  them

I  think you should follow up your charge by applying your own scientific formula

...  or else withdraw the charge and allow that there is no evidence to support it

Please quote exactly what I have said. I have not (I hope) accused Mr Grime of anything. I have suggested possibilities.