What is 'science'

[G-Unit]

What's the point... If posters haven't managed to grasp I have an in depth knowledge of science and scientific  method they are hardly likely to understand how a scientific  test is carried out

In my opinion someone who claims to have an in depth knowledge of a subject should be aware of the problems which arise when the subject to be studied is a human or dog rather than an inanimate object. If you could explain what those problems might be you might convince people that you are as knowledgeable as you claim. I could claim to be a nuclear physicist but I wouldn't expect people to just take my word for it.

[Mr Gray]

In my opinion someone who claims to have an in depth knowledge of a subject should be aware of the problems which arise when the subject to be studied is a human or dog rather than an inanimate object. If you could explain what those problems might be you might convince people that you are as knowledgeable as you claim. I could claim to be a nuclear physicist but I wouldn't expect people to just take my word for it.

So you don't think it's possible to design any studies to test the dogs abilities... We have recently seen some...

As for convincing anyone... I'm not really interested

[Vertigo Swirl]

If I said “global warming is not an exact science “ would I be wrong to say it because it was a strawman, because I already knew it wasn’t and so too do the scientists?

[Eleanor]

So you don't think it's possible to design any studies to test the dogs abilities... We have recently seen some...

Ya.  But some don't like the results.

Or have I lost the plot again?

[G-Unit]

Science can test things... Such as the dogs.... It's very good at testing things.... Not perfect.... And it doesn't claim to be perfect


Your post is goading Re what I have and haven't grasped Re science.... I can pretty much guarantee  I have a, far better understanding  of science than you..

As you are a smoker I'm not surprise you defend it.... Prof Richard Doll proved the connection using epidemiolgy... It took 20 years

I wasn't intending to goad. In my opinion your constant references to 'science' could be seen as goading. You talk about it as if everyone knows what it is. It's not so simple though as there are different kinds of science. You talk about scientific method or methodology in the same way, and there are many variations in that too.

What Doll did was completely rule out the possible effects of traffic and industrial pollution on people's health, despite the fact that the observed rise in cases of lung cancer matched a rise in such pollutants. I don't know what causes lung cancer, but if it's traffic pollution and not smoking Doll is one of the reasons why the effects of pollution has been largely ignored for 50 plus years.

[Alice Purjorick]

What's the point... If posters haven't managed to grasp I have an in depth knowledge of science and scientific  method they are hardly likely to understand how a scientific  test is carried out

We were rather hoping that we could study at the feet of a master and learn how he would design a repeatable and reliable testing regime for "sniffer" dogs.

[G-Unit]

Ya.  But some don't like the results.

Or have I lost the plot again?

For me, it's more a matter of whether the test results can be used to make statements about all dogs and their handlers. It;s a fact that all deciduous trees drop their leaves  annually. It has yest to be shown that all cadaver dogs are unreliable.

[G-Unit]

So you don't think it's possible to design any studies to test the dogs abilities... We have recently seen some...

As for convincing anyone... I'm not really interested

I didn't say it wasn't possible to test dogs, I said it wasn't possible to apply the results to all dogs.

In my opinion you have demonstrated that you like to claim to be knowledgeable, but are unable to support your claims.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I wasn't intending to goad. In my opinion your constant references to 'science' could be seen as goading. You talk about it as if everyone knows what it is. It's not so simple though as there are different kinds of science. You talk about scientific method or methodology in the same way, and there are many variations in that too.

What Doll did was completely rule out the possible effects of traffic and industrial pollution on people's health, despite the fact that the observed rise in cases of lung cancer matched a rise in such pollutants. I don't know what causes lung cancer, but if it's traffic pollution and not smoking Doll is one of the reasons why the effects of pollution has been largely ignored for 50 plus years.

You are rejecting the conclusions of scientists who presumably know a thing or two about the subject because...?

[Angelo222]

Kate McCann was obviously relieved that the dog alerts couldn't be viewed as an exact science and were merely suggestive in the absence of other forensic evidence.  Question is, if she was as innocent as she insists then why bother to ridicule the dogs? 

What were the parents so afraid of that they felt they needed to go to such bother to discredit the CSI and EVRD?

[Mr Gray]

Kate McCann was obviously relieved that the dog alerts couldn't be viewed as an exact science. Question is, if she was as innocent as she insists then why bother to ridicule the dogs?  What were the parents so afraid of that they had to go to the bother of attempting to discredit the CSI and EVRD?

Simy because the want to believe Maddie is, still alive

They are not discrediting the digs... They are exposing the truth

[Erngath]

Kate McCann was obviously relieved that the dog alerts couldn't be viewed as an exact science. Question is, if she was as innocent as she insists then why bother to ridicule the dogs?  What were the parents so afraid of that they had to go to the bother of attempting to discredit the CSI and EVRD?

What were they afraid of?

[Mr Gray]

I didn't say it wasn't possible to test dogs, I said it wasn't possible to apply the results to all dogs.

In my opinion you have demonstrated that you like to claim to be knowledgeable, but are unable to support your claims.

I've never suggested the results be, applied to all dogs

[Mr Gray]

I wasn't intending to goad. In my opinion your constant references to 'science' could be seen as goading. You talk about it as if everyone knows what it is. It's not so simple though as there are different kinds of science. You talk about scientific method or methodology in the same way, and there are many variations in that too.

What Doll did was completely rule out the possible effects of traffic and industrial pollution on people's health, despite the fact that the observed rise in cases of lung cancer matched a rise in such pollutants. I don't know what causes lung cancer, but if it's traffic pollution and not smoking Doll is one of the reasons why the effects of pollution has been largely ignored for 50 plus years.

It's pretty obvious why I keep referring to science  when you consider the thread title.


You think you know better than Doll... His research is there still for, anyone to contradict... No one does although the tobacco companies have a good go.... Smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer..... Air pollution plays a much smaller part

Quote

Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer.21 Aug 2018

[Angelo222]

What were they afraid of?

Yes, what were they afraid of if they were innocent and Maddie didn't die in 5a?