Understanding the Forensic or Scientific Method

[icabodcrane]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs

He spends far more time on the McCann's car and calls Eddie back more times to that car than to any other, suggesting to Eddie that he was exp3cted to react. Had he not been called back he may have missed the blood on the key fob; had he been called back to another car nine times he might have discovered blood in that car.

Simples.

That doesn't constitute evidence  ...  it is merely  supposition

How do you propose we we move on the next stage of the scientific formula  (  testing the evidence ) when that is all we have  ?   

It is evidence that the handler treated what he knew was the McCann's car very differently than the others. Cuing is the handler acting in a manner likely to influence the dog. Spending more time on one car a repeatedly call ing the dog back is clear cuing, not even sublim inal cuing.

By way of 'testing'  the evidence then ... 

Is there video evidence available of the entire deployment of the dogs in PDL,  in order that fair and accurate comparisons may be made  ?

Proof is not necessary for every episode of likely unconscious cuing. The evidence of the video in the parking lot is adequate to suggestthat Mr Grime did not use strict time or indication protocols.

In accordance with the scientific method we are following, I think proof of every episode is necessary

The next stage of the formula,  afterall is  :

Does the evidence overturn innocence    (  we are presuming Mr Grime is innocent at this point, remember )

Partial, or incomplete evide cannot be sufficient to overturn innocence

The null is "no cuing occurs". One exception negates that.

You don't have any science training, do you?

No ...  but I do know that making an assumption based on partial and incomplete evidence is insupportable  ...  in science particularly

One exception overturns the hypothesis.

Nonsense

We are following a scientific formula here remember  ...  and the suggestion that a valid conclusion can be drawn when only one fifth of available evidence has been considered is   ... well ...  very unscientific

[debunker]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs

He spends far more time on the McCann's car and calls Eddie back more times to that car than to any other, suggesting to Eddie that he was exp3cted to react. Had he not been called back he may have missed the blood on the key fob; had he been called back to another car nine times he might have discovered blood in that car.

Simples.

That doesn't constitute evidence  ...  it is merely  supposition

How do you propose we we move on the next stage of the scientific formula  (  testing the evidence ) when that is all we have  ?   

It is evidence that the handler treated what he knew was the McCann's car very differently than the others. Cuing is the handler acting in a manner likely to influence the dog. Spending more time on one car a repeatedly call ing the dog back is clear cuing, not even sublim inal cuing.

By way of 'testing'  the evidence then ... 

Is there video evidence available of the entire deployment of the dogs in PDL,  in order that fair and accurate comparisons may be made  ?

Proof is not necessary for every episode of likely unconscious cuing. The evidence of the video in the parking lot is adequate to suggestthat Mr Grime did not use strict time or indication protocols.

In accordance with the scientific method we are following, I think proof of every episode is necessary

The next stage of the formula,  afterall is  :

Does the evidence overturn innocence    (  we are presuming Mr Grime is innocent at this point, remember )

Partial, or incomplete evide cannot be sufficient to overturn innocence

The null is "no cuing occurs". One exception negates that.

You don't have any science training, do you?

No ...  but I do know that making an assumption based on partial and incomplete evidence is insupportable  ...  in science particularly

One exception overturns the hypothesis.

Nonsense

We are following a scientific formula here remember  ...  and the suggestion that a valid conclusion can be drawn when only one fifth of available evidence has been considered is   ... well ...  very unscientific

You just don't understand the scientific method.

[icabodcrane]

Where have I said he did that intentionally.

That would be necessary to make it libel.

There is valid peer reviewed evidence for unconscious cuing.

Alright then,  I accept that you were accusing Mr Grime of  'unintentionallly'  cueing his dog

Now,  to pick up on the scientific formula  you put such stock in  ...  we are at the juncture where you produce the evidence that Mr Grime  'unintentionally'  cued his dogs

He spends far more time on the McCann's car and calls Eddie back more times to that car than to any other, suggesting to Eddie that he was exp3cted to react. Had he not been called back he may have missed the blood on the key fob; had he been called back to another car nine times he might have discovered blood in that car.

Simples.

That doesn't constitute evidence  ...  it is merely  supposition

How do you propose we we move on the next stage of the scientific formula  (  testing the evidence ) when that is all we have  ?   

It is evidence that the handler treated what he knew was the McCann's car very differently than the others. Cuing is the handler acting in a manner likely to influence the dog. Spending more time on one car a repeatedly call ing the dog back is clear cuing, not even sublim inal cuing.

By way of 'testing'  the evidence then ... 

Is there video evidence available of the entire deployment of the dogs in PDL,  in order that fair and accurate comparisons may be made  ?

Proof is not necessary for every episode of likely unconscious cuing. The evidence of the video in the parking lot is adequate to suggestthat Mr Grime did not use strict time or indication protocols.

In accordance with the scientific method we are following, I think proof of every episode is necessary

The next stage of the formula,  afterall is  :

Does the evidence overturn innocence    (  we are presuming Mr Grime is innocent at this point, remember )

Partial, or incomplete evide cannot be sufficient to overturn innocence

The null is "no cuing occurs". One exception negates that.

You don't have any science training, do you?

No ...  but I do know that making an assumption based on partial and incomplete evidence is insupportable  ...  in science particularly

One exception overturns the hypothesis.

Nonsense

We are following a scientific formula here remember  ...  and the suggestion that a valid conclusion can be drawn when only one fifth of available evidence has been considered is   ... well ...  very unscientific

You just don't understand the scientific method.

I'd like to see you  tell a  'real' scientist that a valid conclusion can be arrived at by considering just one fifth of available evidence

You are being silly now debunker   ...  and very, very unscientific

[debunker]

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

Look, simple example:

Hypothesis: all swans are white.

You produce one black swan.


Hypothesis overturned.

[icabodcrane]

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

Look, simple example:

Hypothesis: all swans are white.

You produce one black swan.


Hypothesis overturned.

Your conclusion  was that  Martin Grime spent more time on the McCann car than he did on any of the other cars   ...  without knowing  how much time he spent on the  other cars

The swan analogy,  in your case would be  :

One swan is white  ...  therefore all swans must be white

Hypothesis valueless

[debunker]

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

Look, simple example:

Hypothesis: all swans are white.

You produce one black swan.


Hypothesis overturned.

Your conclusion  was that  Martin Grime spent more time on the McCann car than he did on any of the other cars   ...  without knowing  how much time he spent on the  other cars

The swan analogy,  in your case would be  :

One swan is white  ...  therefore all swans must be white

Hypothesis valueless

The full video shows a continuous uncut shot of all the cars so it is possible to time and count thewho l e search.

[C.Edwards]

It's an interesting point that Icabod and Stephen make. How do we know how long Grime spent on each car when it appears not all the video is available to be seen?  Is it not therefore possible that Grime spent even MORE time calling Eddie back to another vehicle or two?  Without facts to disprove...

[icabodcrane]

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

Look, simple example:

Hypothesis: all swans are white.

You produce one black swan.


Hypothesis overturned.

Your conclusion  was that  Martin Grime spent more time on the McCann car than he did on any of the other cars   ...  without knowing  how much time he spent on the  other cars

The swan analogy,  in your case would be  :

One swan is white  ...  therefore all swans must be white

Hypothesis valueless

The full video shows a continuous uncut shot of all the cars so it is possible to time and count thewho l e search.

You are making assumptions based on very little evidence

That is not scientific

[icabodcrane]

It's an interesting point that Icabod and Stephen make. How do we know how long Grime spent on each car when it appears not all the video is available to be seen?  Is it not therefore possible that Grime spent even MORE time calling Eddie back to another vehicle or two?  Without facts to disprove...

It is entirely possible C Edwards

[debunker]

It's an interesting point that Icabod and Stephen make. How do we know how long Grime spent on each car when it appears not all the video is available to be seen?  Is it not therefore possible that Grime spent even MORE time calling Eddie back to another vehicle or two?  Without facts to disprove...

The long versionis ina long continuous take without any gaps.

[icabodcrane]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTF4JTLeOWA there are no edits in this video.

 Thanks for that Martha, it's a while since I saw it

I didn't notice before,  but in the context of this  'cueing' debate  I was struck by Mr Grime saying that the dog had his head in the air ( a short distance from the McCann's car )  and that he had got  'the scent'  of what he looks for

...  and he  was /i]  ...  he was putting his nose in the air like he  had it !  ...  the scent

Grime says it's just  a matter of tying him down then   ...  making him 'focus'  I guess

That doesn't look like cueing at all to me ...  that looks like it's the dog leading the handler  (  just as it should be )

[Redblossom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTF4JTLeOWA there are no edits in this video.

 Thanks for that Martha, it's a while since I saw it

I didn't notice before,  but in the context of this  'cueing' debate  I was struck by Mr Grime saying that the dog had his head in the air ( a short distance from the McCann's car )  and that he had got  'the scent'  of what he looks for

...  and he  was /i]  ...  he was putting his nose in the air like he  had it !  ...  the scent

Grime says it's just  a matter of tying him down then   ...  making him 'focus'  I guess

That doesn't look like cueing at all to me ...  that looks like it's the dog leading the handler  (  just as it should be )

Exactly, its the DOG that is trained to scent alerting not the handler and the dog alerts when it find it, not the handler, its very simple but is being convoluted by some for their own reasons, sad

[icabodcrane]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTF4JTLeOWA there are no edits in this video.

 Thanks for that Martha, it's a while since I saw it

I didn't notice before,  but in the context of this  'cueing' debate  I was struck by Mr Grime saying that the dog had his head in the air ( a short distance from the McCann's car )  and that he had got  'the scent'  of what he looks for

...  and he  was /i]  ...  he was putting his nose in the air like he  had it !  ...  the scent

Grime says it's just  a matter of tying him down then   ...  making him 'focus'  I guess

That doesn't look like cueing at all to me ...  that looks like it's the dog leading the handler  (  just as it should be )

Exactly, its the DOG that is trained to scent alerting not the handler

It is clear in that video

The dog moves past the McCann car but he already has something  ...  he has the scent he is trained to detect !

He moves around sniffing the air,  trying to locate the source   ...  his handler sees what  is happening and focusses the dog

It's quite remarkable  ... and utterly convincing

[debunker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTF4JTLeOWA there are no edits in this video.

 Thanks for that Martha, it's a while since I saw it

I didn't notice before,  but in the context of this  'cueing' debate  I was struck by Mr Grime saying that the dog had his head in the air ( a short distance from the McCann's car )  and that he had got  'the scent'  of what he looks for

...  and he  was /i]  ...  he was putting his nose in the air like he  had it !  ...  the scent

Grime says it's just  a matter of tying him down then   ...  making him 'focus'  I guess

That doesn't look like cueing at all to me ...  that looks like it's the dog leading the handler  (  just as it should be )

Exactly, its the DOG that is trained to scent alerting not the handler and the dog alerts when it find it, not the handler, its very simple but is being convoluted by some for their own reasons, sad

An "alert" is a complex set of behaviours arising from conscious and unconscious, liminal and subliminal communication between handler and dogs.

I refer you to the paper above where scent dogs were asked to identify scents for which they had been trained. A selection of cloth squares was placed in the test area. Dogs identified the scent on a quarter of the cloth squares. Most of these reactions were ro the squares which the handler had been briefed had scent on them. NO SCENT WAS PRESENT ON ANY CLOTH SQUARE. So some dogs just made errors identifying squares, but most of thexerrors were due to cuing from the handlers.

How else do you explain these results?

[C.Edwards]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTF4JTLeOWA there are no edits in this video.

Do you know, for certain, that this is ALL of the available video and it covers all of the dog search in the garage?  Don't guess and ask "why wouldn't it be?" as I can guess as well as you, I'm simply asking if you know it is all that is available and whether it covers all of the exercise. 

If it isn't and doesn't, then isn't it just pure speculation to opine about what Grime and his dogs did/didn't do?  (Even more than the speculation about the methods of dog handling, what Grime knew/didn't know about the cars and so on...)