Radioactive dating

[Zosimus]

Fingerprints and ballistics and DNA analysis will continue to work and continue to convict people even though you bemoan the fact that evidence works. If you wish to establish that certain lines of evidence are unreliable, you have to do it scientifically, not on mere faith.

Congratulations. I am completely gobsmacked. I just posted a link to a federal judge on a DC circuit court of appeals–a man who authored the 2009 report for the National Academy of Sciences in which he and his committee members uncovered and published the lack of anything remotely resembling studies that would support the idea that these self-proclaimed experts were anything but two-bit hacks.

And your response is "...you bemoan the fact that evidence works?"

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Let's try another link:

Forensic Science Isn't Science

" Far from an infallible science, forensics is a decades-long experiment in which undertrained lab workers jettison the scientific method in favor of speedy results that fit prosecutors’ hunches. No one knows exactly how many people have been wrongly imprisoned—or executed—due to flawed forensics. But the number, most experts agree, is horrifyingly high. The most respected scientific organization in the country has revealed how deeply, fundamentally unscientific forensics is. A complete overhaul of our evidence analysis is desperately needed. Without it, the number of falsely convicted will only keep growing....

"In 2009, a National Academy of Sciences committee embarked on a long-overdue quest to study typical forensics analyses with an appropriate level of scientific scrutiny—and the results were deeply chilling. Aside from DNA analysis, not a single forensic practice held up to rigorous inspection. The committee condemned common methods of fingerprint and hair analysis, questioning their accuracy, consistent application, and general validity. Bite-mark analysis—frequently employed in rape and murder cases, including capital cases—was subject to special scorn; the committee questioned whether bite marks could ever be used to positively identify a perpetrator. Ballistics and handwriting analysis, the committee noted, are also based on tenuous and largely untested science. The report amounted to a searing condemnation of the current practice of forensics and an ominous warning that death row may be filled with innocents."
---------------------------------
---------------------------------

In conclusion: I wish there weren't a restriction on flaming in this forum because you, sir, are sorely in need of scorn heaped high on your head.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Congratulations. I am completely gobsmacked. I just posted a link to a federal judge on a DC circuit court of appeals–a man who authored the 2009 report for the National Academy of Sciences in which he and his committee members uncovered and published the lack of anything remotely resembling studies that would support the idea that these self-proclaimed experts were anything but two-bit hacks.

And your response is "...you bemoan the fact that evidence works?"

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Let's try another link:

Forensic Science Isn't Science

" Far from an infallible science, forensics is a decades-long experiment in which undertrained lab workers jettison the scientific method in favor of speedy results that fit prosecutors’ hunches. No one knows exactly how many people have been wrongly imprisoned—or executed—due to flawed forensics. But the number, most experts agree, is horrifyingly high. The most respected scientific organization in the country has revealed how deeply, fundamentally unscientific forensics is. A complete overhaul of our evidence analysis is desperately needed. Without it, the number of falsely convicted will only keep growing....

"In 2009, a National Academy of Sciences committee embarked on a long-overdue quest to study typical forensics analyses with an appropriate level of scientific scrutiny—and the results were deeply chilling. Aside from DNA analysis, not a single forensic practice held up to rigorous inspection. The committee condemned common methods of fingerprint and hair analysis, questioning their accuracy, consistent application, and general validity. Bite-mark analysis—frequently employed in rape and murder cases, including capital cases—was subject to special scorn; the committee questioned whether bite marks could ever be used to positively identify a perpetrator. Ballistics and handwriting analysis, the committee noted, are also based on tenuous and largely untested science. The report amounted to a searing condemnation of the current practice of forensics and an ominous warning that death row may be filled with innocents."
---------------------------------
---------------------------------

In conclusion: I wish there weren't a restriction on flaming in this forum because you, sir, are sorely in need of scorn heaped high on your head.

Like you, I deplore the use of faulty evidence. But it is true, however, that the concept of using evidence to establish things that happened remains valid, when used properly. You cannot simply say there is no such thing, ever, as valid evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like you, I deplore the use of faulty evidence. But it is true, however, that the concept of using evidence to establish things that happened remains valid, when used properly. You cannot simply say there is no such thing, ever, as valid evidence.

I agree. Also, as you seem to know, there is a self correcting mechanism in the world of science. The current method that new ideas are spread is through the mechanism of peer review. But a single peer reviewed article is not of very much worth. If someone comes out with a new idea it will be tested by other scientists. The more important the idea is the more scientists will test it. Scientists are not like a flock of sheep that will follow the lead of one bright scientist. Even the brightest scientist will have countless detractors.

There are two things that a scientist can do to become famous. Either come up with a new theory that is tested by others and found to be correct or to show that another famous scientist is wrong.

Court cases are not quite the same. They are supposed to be using settled science as a tool and if one is wrong he might not be refuted until there is an appeal. The correction methods in courts is not quite as automatic as it is in the world of science and it is not quite right to compare errors in courts to errors in the world of science.

 

[Zosimus]

I agree. Also, as you seem to know, there is a self correcting mechanism in the world of science. The current method that new ideas are spread is through the mechanism of peer review.

Yes, I know that science gives you wood and that you place an irrational faith in it. However, if you bothered to read the link you would see that it clearly indicates:

"For decades, nobody knew how accurate forensic analyses were, or whether they were accurate at all. There’s no central agency that evaluates each test for precision or reliability before approving its use, and most were developed with barely a gesture toward the scientific method and with little input from the scientific community. Nor did the creators of forensics tests publish their methods in peer-reviewed scientific journals."

So don't give me that "science is self-correcting and peer review solves the problems" nonsense. I'll become Mormon, wear the magic underwear, and learn the secret handshakes before I'll believe the nonsense you spew.

But a single peer reviewed article is not of very much worth. If someone comes out with a new idea it will be tested by other scientists. The more important the idea is the more scientists will test it. Scientists are not like a flock of sheep that will follow the lead of one bright scientist. Even the brightest scientist will have countless detractors.

More nonsense.

There are two things that a scientist can do to become famous. Either come up with a new theory that is tested by others and found to be correct or to show that another famous scientist is wrong.

Court cases are not quite the same. They are supposed to be using settled science as a tool and if one is wrong he might not be refuted until there is an appeal. The correction methods in courts is not quite as automatic as it is in the world of science and it is not quite right to compare errors in courts to errors in the world of science.

Forensic Evidence Isn't As Reliable As You Might Think

"The FBI and DOJ recently admitted that hundreds of convictions involved flawed hair comparisons, even though research about how common it is for different people’s hair to look the same does not exist. Similarly, there are no scientific studies proving that individuals have unique fingerprints or dental prints. There are no guidelines to determine a match between a shoe print found at a crime scene and that of a suspect. And there is no proof that bullet marks are uniquely connected to a specific firearm.

"But according to Senior Attorney Charlotte Morrison of the Equal Justice Initiative, who worked on Dandridge and Hinton’s court challenges, forensic science is not the only problem that arises during an investigation. Evidence is problematic, but so are the examiners who rely on it. Morrison pointed out that certain protocols are crucial to make reliable findings, but examiners do not necessarily follow them....

"Studies also show that examiner biases play a significant role in the collection of evidence and the assessments that they make. In many cases, forensic experts are motivated to reach certain conclusions, because they are offered rewards or face pressure from law enforcement and prosecutors to do so. Some people make assessments based on cognitive bias, meaning their conclusions are based on what they anticipate the findings will be. Others demonstrate confirmation bias, meaning they report findings that align with their personal opinions about a case."
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Forensic science is not science. It's nonsense. Anyone can Google "how reliable is forensic science" and find out the truth. It's not reliable at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know that science gives you wood and that you place an irrational faith in it. However, if you bothered to read the link you would see that it clearly indicates:

"For decades, nobody knew how accurate forensic analyses were, or whether they were accurate at all. There’s no central agency that evaluates each test for precision or reliability before approving its use, and most were developed with barely a gesture toward the scientific method and with little input from the scientific community. Nor did the creators of forensics tests publish their methods in peer-reviewed scientific journals."

Then why are you bringing up forensics if it did not even go through peer review in the first place? I have doubts about that last claim. It is very hard to get new technology accepted into a court. Just because someone claims something in an article does not mean that it is true.

So don't give me that "science is self-correcting and peer review solves the problems" nonsense. I'll become Mormon, wear the magic underwear, and learn the secret handshakes before I'll believe the nonsense you spew.

I see. "Nonsense" simply means that you do not understand. If you politely ask questions I will try to help you.

More nonsense.

I see, still to hard for you to understand.

Forensic Evidence Isn't As Reliable As You Might Think

"The FBI and DOJ recently admitted that hundreds of convictions involved flawed hair comparisons, even though research about how common it is for different people’s hair to look the same does not exist. Similarly, there are no scientific studies proving that individuals have unique fingerprints or dental prints. There are no guidelines to determine a match between a shoe print found at a crime scene and that of a suspect. And there is no proof that bullet marks are uniquely connected to a specific firearm.

"But according to Senior Attorney Charlotte Morrison of the Equal Justice Initiative, who worked on Dandridge and Hinton’s court challenges, forensic science is not the only problem that arises during an investigation. Evidence is problematic, but so are the examiners who rely on it. Morrison pointed out that certain protocols are crucial to make reliable findings, but examiners do not necessarily follow them....

"Studies also show that examiner biases play a significant role in the collection of evidence and the assessments that they make. In many cases, forensic experts are motivated to reach certain conclusions, because they are offered rewards or face pressure from law enforcement and prosecutors to do so. Some people make assessments based on cognitive bias, meaning their conclusions are based on what they anticipate the findings will be. Others demonstrate confirmation bias, meaning they report findings that align with their personal opinions about a case."
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Forensic science is not science. It's nonsense. Anyone can Google "how reliable is forensic science" and find out the truth. It's not reliable at all.

So you found an unprofessional article that has problems with forensic science. Guess what they used to overturn those findings that were in error? They used forensic science. It is a bit hypocritical to lash out at forensic science and then use forensic science to refute the previous findings. Yes, mistakes are made at times using science. But you showed the reliability of science by finding cases that were corrected by the proper application of science. If you use a screwdriver as a hammer why would you be surprised if they got bad results? Also some of those people were merely found "not guilty" that means that the botched use of science that previous people made left them without enough evidence to convict the person. It does not necessarily mean that they were innocent. I am sure that in some cases the person was innocent, but you need to do a lot better than an article from a bit of a leftist source if you want to overturn forensic science, much less the science that supports the theory of evolution.

 

[Zosimus]

Then why are you bringing up forensics if it did not even go through peer review in the first place?

I did not bring it up. Loudmouth mentioned it in his recent post. Do try to keep up with the conversation.

I have doubts about that last claim.

You are not allowed to have doubts about claims. You are required (by your own philosophy) to provide evidence in support of or against a specific claim. Peer-reviewed forensic techniques are uncommon. In addition, I easily found an article in a forensic newsletter questioning the value of peer review. The author writes "... for those busy practitioners who are prepared to devote time to sharing the results of research they have conducted with the community, the process of formally writing up results for publication can simply be too time consuming. Peer reviewed publications may also have the issue of requiring a paid subscription in order to access the content, which (sic) therefore restricts access to the material."
------------------------
In short, when scanning your hard drive to determine whether you had kiddie porn on it and should go to prison for a couple decades, forensic examiners shouldn't go to peer-reviewed publications. They should check out the nearest unreviewed blog before testifying that you're a pedophile who deserves decades in the slammer.

Of course, the author mentions a peer-reviewed publication entitled The Journal of Digital Forensic Practice. Unfortunately that peer-reviewed journal published all of three volumes and stopped publishing in 2010.

I see. "Nonsense" simply means that you do not understand. If you politely ask questions I will try to help you.

Oh you want to take it there, do you? Let's go.

Question 1: Do you agree with the claim that the best (or only) way to find out about the physical world is to use our senses (eyes, scientific equipment, etc.) (hereinafter called "empiricism")? If so, then how can you justify that claim? Note that if you say "It only makes sense" or "It's obvious" then you are using a rational argument to try to justify the idea that empiricism is better than rationalism. So if you do so, you are contradicting yourself. So go ahead–convince me that empiricism is the best way.

Question 2: Do you believe that confirmations make a falsifiable theory more likely? If so, how does this work? Additionally, if my theory is "Everything that exists is not a black hole" and I provide you with a million grains of sand, none of which is a black hole, do you feel that this theory has been highly confirmed? Why or why not? (See also Hempel's Paradox). Assuming that you think that this theory has been highly confirmed, do you agree that the statement "Everything that exists is not a black hole" is logically equivalent to "Black holes do not exist?" Why or why not?

Question 3: If science is so all-fired wonderful then why are most published research findings false?

Question 4: Assume that we have a large number of emeralds on the table. You look at them and say, "All the data support the idea that all emeralds are green." However, I disagree and say "No, the data support the theory that all emeralds are grue." Since you have never heard of the word grue, you ask for a definition and I say, "Grue means that the emeralds will seem green to you until C.E. 2500 at which point they will seem blue." Would you say that every newly-found emerald supports the theory that all emeralds are grue? What if someone else comes in and insists that emeralds are actually gred (green now, red later)? How will you empirically adjudicate between these claims?

Question 5: Since the only known justification for the idea that past scientific findings will be replicated in the future is circular (it's always happened in the past) how do you justify the idea that past scientific theories are likely to continue to work in the future? Do you use Bayesian statistics, for example? If so, could you explain how you do so and show the math that you use?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not bring it up. Loudmouth mentioned it in his recent post. Do try to keep up with the conversation.

Yes, I know that, but you were the one that started the poorly supported attack on forensic evidence. Don't accuse others of not keeping up when you can't remember your own errors.

You are not allowed to have doubts about claims. You are required (by your own philosophy) to provide evidence in support of or against a specific claim. Peer-reviewed forensic techniques are uncommon. In addition, I easily found an article in a forensic newsletter questioning the value of peer review. The author writes "... for those busy practitioners who are prepared to devote time to sharing the results of research they have conducted with the community, the process of formally writing up results for publication can simply be too time consuming. Peer reviewed publications may also have the issue of requiring a paid subscription in order to access the content, which (sic) therefore restricts access to the material."
------------------------
In short, when scanning your hard drive to determine whether you had kiddie porn on it and should go to prison for a couple decades, forensic examiners shouldn't go to peer-reviewed publications. They should check out the nearest unreviewed blog before testifying that you're a pedophile who deserves decades in the slammer.

Sorry, but you misunderstood your own article. It does not question the value of peer review. It states that non-peer reviewed articles still may be valid. You seem to have reading comprehension disabilities. The problem with peer review that it notes is that it takes longer and one usually has to pay to read articles, which (and why the "sic" in your post, the word may have been used clumsily but it was not incorrect grammatically) would lead to taking more time for the material to be dispersed to the public.

Of course, the author mentions a peer-reviewed publication entitled The Journal of Digital Forensic Practice. Unfortunately that peer-reviewed journal published all of three volumes and stopped publishing in 2010.

This still does not support your claim. And of course I have the right to have doubts by my standards. If I make a claim that is not well supported you can have doubts about it, the same happens when you do not properly support a claim. When I say "I have my doubts" that is an indication that you did not support yourself and need to do a better job.

Oh you want to take it there, do you? Let's go.

Question 1: Do you agree with the claim that the best (or only) way to find out about the physical world is to use our senses (eyes, scientific equipment, etc.) (hereinafter called "empiricism")? If so, then how can you justify that claim? Note that if you say "It only makes sense" or "It's obvious" then you are using a rational argument to try to justify the idea that empiricism is better than rationalism. So if you do so, you are contradicting yourself. So go ahead–convince me that empiricism is the best way.

Yes, empiricism is the best method. The answer is "Because it works". I challenge you to show me any method that works any better. The computer that you are using is a product of empiricism. And please, don't keep making false accusations of "you are contradicting yourself". I did not even have time to do so before you started slinging those charges around. And why should I bother to try to convince you? That does not seem to be too likely. You have already made up your mind and it seems that no amount of evidence will convince you.

Question 2: Do you believe that confirmations make a falsifiable theory more likely? If so, how does this work? Additionally, if my theory is "Everything that exists is not a black hole" and I provide you with a million grains of sand, none of which is a black hole, do you feel that this theory has been highly confirmed? Why or why not? (See also Hempel's Paradox). Assuming that you think that this theory has been highly confirmed, do you agree that the statement "Everything that exists is not a black hole" is logically equivalent to "Black holes do not exist?" Why or why not?

That is some twisted logic there. Can you try again in English?

Question 3: If science is so all-fired wonderful then why are most published research findings false?

Another article that you did not understand. Perhaps you read just the title. If you read the article it focuses almost entirely on problems in medical peer review. It also notes that even with these failures that science is self correcting. Nice aim, you just shot yourself in the foot:


"Thankfully science is self-correcting. Over time, findings are replicated or not replicated and the truth comes out in the wash."

But even with regular science, when I am debating with someone one peer reviewed article alone is never definitive. Usually I like to find several on the same topic so I can be reasonable sure that the idea has been tested. You don't even seem to know how the scientific process works. A single peer reviewed article is only the beginning of how new ideas are adopted. Scientists never say "well it passed peer review, I guess that means it is right". No, they test it. And the bigger an idea is the higher the number of scientists there are that will test it.

Yes, the scientific method works because ideas are tested and retested.

Question 4: Assume that we have a large number of emeralds on the table. You look at them and say, "All the data support the idea that all emeralds are green." However, I disagree and say "No, the data support the theory that all emeralds are grue." Since you have never heard of the word grue, you ask for a definition and I say, "Grue means that the emeralds will seem green to you until C.E. 2500 at which point they will seem blue." Would you say that every newly-found emerald supports the theory that all emeralds are grue? What if someone else comes in and insists that emeralds are actually gred (green now, red later)? How will you empirically adjudicate between these claims?

Thanks for the laugh. This question showed your lack of education into the scientific method. One thing you would have learned is that when scientists use terms they tend to use terms with specific definitions. If a geologist uses the term "sand" in an article you know he is talking about particles between .06 mm and 2 mm. If a physicist is talking about "green" light it will be light of a specified wavelength. Scientists cannot make up their own words, or on the rare occasions that they do they must define them very well. Your last question was an example of a non-problem.

Question 5: Since the only known justification for the idea that past scientific findings will be replicated in the future is circular (it's always happened in the past) how do you justify the idea that past scientific theories are likely to continue to work in the future? Do you use Bayesian statistics, for example? If so, could you explain how you do so and show the math that you use?

Sorry, it is much more than "circular". Please try to ask proper questions if you want an answer. You put an unwarranted assumption in your question. Theories are always regards as provisionally correct. The more that a theory is tested and found to be correct the more likely it is felt to be correct. Please show me any better system. How often do you have to drop a rock before you will believe it will fall each and every time? That is a very small scale example of testing a scientific theory. How long will it be before you apply it to other things that may fall. The scientific method works because it finds a way of testing observations with as little bias as possible. And it exposes the findings of one person to the testing of others.

Strange, you accused me of "nonsense", but you failed to demonstrate that it was "nonsense" in any way at all. It seems that when you do say "nonsense" you are simply saying that you do not understand. And I am doing you a favor this time. Remember I said that you needed to ask politely. These were not polite questions. If you ask rudely I will simply give you a "try again".

 

[Zosimus]

Yes, I know that, but you were the one that started the poorly supported attack on forensic evidence. Don't accuse others of not keeping up when you can't remember your own errors.

I'm not attacking forensic evidence. I'm pointing out that all investigation into forensic "science" shows that it is not all it's cracked up to be. You are the evidence denier.

Sorry, but you misunderstood your own article. It does not question the value of peer review.

Yes, it does. When you have an article that consists of pros and cons this implies that (at least in the con section) the person will be questioning the value of peer review.

It states that non-peer reviewed articles still may be valid.

So people should be convicted by non-peer reviewed pseudo-science. Nice.

You seem to have reading comprehension disabilities.

No, I think it's more likely that you have the problem. You seem to be unable to read an argument critically and divide it into facts and opinions.

The problem with peer review that it notes is that it takes longer and one usually has to pay to read articles, which (and why the "sic" in your post, the word may have been used clumsily but it was not incorrect grammatically) would lead to taking more time for the material to be dispersed to the public.

Actually, the which is grammatically incorrect. To illustrate the reason, let's take a look at this sample sentence:

Julia bought a dress and a car, which was sleeveless. (WRONG. The car is not sleeveless).
Julia bought a car and a dress, which was sleeveless. (RIGHT!)

Julia travelled to Italy in July, which is a great country. (WRONG. July is not a great country).
In July, Julia travelled to Italy, which is a great country. (RIGHT!)

(From the article):
Peer reviewed publications may also have the issue of requiring a paid subscription in order to access the content, which therefore restricts access to the material. (WRONG. The content does not restrict access to the material).
Peer-reviewed publications may also require a paid subscription to access the content, restricting access to the material. (RIGHT!)

Here's a test from a real GMAT sentence correction question.

The cameras of the Voyager II spacecraft detected six small, previously unseen moons circling Uranus, which doubles to twelve the number of satellites now known as orbiting the distant planet.

(A) which doubles to twelve the number of satellites now known as orbiting
(B) doubling to twelve the number of satellites now known to orbit
(C) which doubles to twelve the number of satellites now known in orbit around
(D) doubling to twelve the number of satellites now known as orbiting
(E) which doubles to twelve the number of satellites now known that orbit

Which of the options (A-E) best replaces the underlined text?

This still does not support your claim. And of course I have the right to have doubts by my standards. If I make a claim that is not well supported you can have doubts about it, the same happens when you do not properly support a claim. When I say "I have my doubts" that is an indication that you did not support yourself and need to do a better job.

No, you must provide evidence to support any claim that you make according to your own standards.

Yes, empiricism is the best method. The answer is "Because it works".

Can you demonstrate that empirically? No? Okay, that's what I thought.

I challenge you to show me any method that works any better.

Rationalism. I will prove that absolute truth exists. First, if we assume that absolute truth does not exist, then we have a contradiction because the claim "Absolute truth does not exist" is asserted to be absolutely true. Second, if we adopt the claim by Thomas Kuhn[/quote] that truth is relative only to a specific paradigm, the claim "Truth is relative only to a specific paradigm" is asserted to be absolutely true. Thus, absolute truth exists.

The computer that you are using is a product of empiricism.

Speculation.

And please, don't keep making false accusations of "you are contradicting yourself". I did not even have time to do so before you started slinging those charges around. And why should I bother to try to convince you? That does not seem to be too likely. You have already made up your mind and it seems that no amount of evidence will convince you.

When I said "If you say..." that's a conditional statement. Do you know how conditional statements work?

That is some twisted logic there. Can you try again in English?

It's called Hempel's Paradox. I provided you with a link. Apparently you didn't open it.

Let's try again. Imagine that I suppose that all ravens are black. This is logically equivalent to the statement all non-black things are not ravens. According to this logic, finding a green apple tends to confirm that all ravens are black since the apple is a non-black thing that isn't a raven. How do you resolve this paradox? And before you dismiss it because you don't understand it, let me point out that [url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hempel/]Carl Hempel "...was instrumental in the transformation of the dominant philosophical movement of the 1930s and 40s, which was known as 'logical positivism', into the more nuanced position known as 'logical empiricism'. His studies of induction, explanation, and rationality in science exerted a profound influence upon more than a generation of philosophers of science, many of whom became leaders of the discipline in their own right." So please, don't just shrug it off and choose ignorance.

Another article that you did not understand. Perhaps you read just the title. If you read the article it focuses almost entirely on problems in medical peer review. It also notes that even with these failures that science is self correcting.

I think you're the one who didn't understand. Let's look at a quote:

'"If you use p=0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30 percent of the time." That's assuming "the most optimistic view possible" in which every experiment is perfectly designed, with perfectly random allocation, zero bias, no multiple comparisons and publication of all negative findings. Colquhorn concludes: "If, as is often the case, experiments are underpowered, you will be wrong most of the time."
-----------------------
That doesn't say "in medical science." It says that p=0.05 isn't enough (mathematically speaking) to indicate that you have made any kind of a discovery at all. Even if everything else about the experiment is perfect, the result will be wrong at least 30 percent of the time. Do you need a math course too?

The article continues: "Thankfully science is self-correcting. Over time, findings are replicated or not replicated and the truth comes out in the wash." Is this a statement of fact or opinion? I think we can see that it is an opinion. What justification does he use to back this up? Nothing at all. I, however, have already pointed out that even known-fraudulent retracted papers continue to be quoted in scientific literature[/quote] years after they are retracted. I quote: "Our data show that even 5 years after their retraction, nearly half of Reuben’s articles are still being quoted and the retraction status is correctly mentioned in only one quarter of the citations.

"Reuben, a Massachusetts anesthesiologist who fabricated data, [URL='http://anesthesiologynews.com/ViewArticle.aspx?d=Web%2BExclusives&d_id=175&i=June%2B2010&i_id=637&a_id=15399']spent six months in federal prison for his crimes. In 2009, it was found he’d fabricated data in many papers, and now has 25 retractions."
------------------
So no, the data do not support the idea that science is self-correcting!!

Yes, the scientific method works because ideas are tested and retested.

Speculation.

Thanks for the laugh. This question showed your lack of education into the scientific method. One thing you would have learned is that when scientists use terms they tend to use terms with specific definitions. If a geologist uses the term "sand" in an article you know he is talking about particles between .06 mm and 2 mm. If a physicist is talking about "green" light it will be light of a specified wavelength. Scientists cannot make up their own words, or on the rare occasions that they do they must define them very well. Your last question was an example of a non-problem.

Alas, it is you who are poorly educated. What I have posted is the New Riddle of Induction – those are the things you learn about when you go to university and study the philosophy of science.

Sorry, it is much more than "circular". Please try to ask proper questions if you want an answer. You put an unwarranted assumption in your question. Theories are always regards as provisionally correct. The more that a theory is tested and found to be correct the more likely it is felt to be correct. Please show me any better system. How often do you have to drop a rock before you will believe it will fall each and every time? That is a very small scale example of testing a scientific theory. How long will it be before you apply it to other things that may fall. The scientific method works because it finds a way of testing observations with as little bias as possible. And it exposes the findings of one person to the testing of others.

Oh really. All right, let's say that yesterday the sun came up and today the sun came up. You will conclude that it's very likely that the sun will come up tomorrow. How do you conclude this? Let's look at the logic.

Premise: The sun has risen without fail every day for as long as anyone can remember.
Conclusion: The sun will rise again tomorrow.
----------------
Unfortunately, the premise does not support the conclusion. You can see this because the word "tomorrow" is mentioned in the conclusion, but this word is not mentioned in any of the premises. Accordingly, we will have to include the assumption:

Assumption: Things will happen tomorrow (the future) in the same way as they happened yesterday (in the past).

But how do you support this assumption? How do we know that the future will occur in the same way as it did in the past? The naive answer is that this method has worked well in the past and will, therefore, work well in the future. This is circular logic. You cannot prove that the past is a good guide to the future by assuming that the past is a good guide to the future.[/url][/url]

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not attacking forensic evidence. I'm pointing out that all investigation into forensic "science" shows that it is not all it's cracked up to be. You are the evidence denier.

But you failed.

Yes, it does. When you have an article that consists of pros and cons this implies that (at least in the con section) the person will be questioning the value of peer review.

Wrong again.

So people should be convicted by non-peer reviewed pseudo-science. Nice.

Not what I said or implied, you failed again.

No, I think it's more likely that you have the problem. You seem to be unable to read an argument critically and divide it into facts and opinions.

Sorry, but I am not the one with bad reading comprehension here.

Actually, the which is grammatically incorrect. To illustrate the reason, let's take a look at this sample sentence:

Julia bought a dress and a car, which was sleeveless. (WRONG. The car is not sleeveless).
Julia bought a car and a dress, which was sleeveless. (RIGHT!)

Julia travelled to Italy in July, which is a great country. (WRONG. July is not a great country).
In July, Julia travelled to Italy, which is a great country. (RIGHT!)

(From the article):
Peer reviewed publications may also have the issue of requiring a paid subscription in order to access the content, which therefore restricts access to the material. (WRONG. The content does not restrict access to the material).
Peer-reviewed publications may also require a paid subscription to access the content, restricting access to the material. (RIGHT!)

I see, I understand the reading comprehension fail of yours. There were two objects in your clause with Julia, a car and a dress, or a month and a country, before the comma. And the wrong one was just before the comma. The word "content" which the word "which" obviously applied to, directly preceded the comma. As I said reading comprehension problems.

Here's a test from a real GMAT sentence correction question.

The cameras of the Voyager II spacecraft detected six small, previously unseen moons circling Uranus, which doubles to twelve the number of satellites now known as orbiting the distant planet.

(A) which doubles to twelve the number of satellites now known as orbiting
(B) doubling to twelve the number of satellites now known to orbit
(C) which doubles to twelve the number of satellites now known in orbit around
(D) doubling to twelve the number of satellites now known as orbiting
(E) which doubles to twelve the number of satellites now known that orbit

Which of the options (A-E) best replaces the underlined text?

But again the word "Uranus" directly precedes the comma. That implies that Uranus was doubled. You need to pick a better example to show that he was wrong.

No, you must provide evidence to support any claim that you make according to your own standards.

Please pay attention, only when challenged. There are going to be many ideas that we share and a sane person will not challenge. Would you challenge someone if he simply said 1 + 1 = 2? If not then your demand is hypocritical. One only needs to be ready to provide evidence for beliefs that are different or challenged.

Can you demonstrate that empirically? No? Okay, that's what I thought.[?quote]

Now you are acting rather foolishly. I will take that as an admission of defeat. If you want to be serious then we can discuss this more.

Rationalism. I will prove that absolute truth exists. First, if we assume that absolute truth does not exist, then we have a contradiction because the claim "Absolute truth does not exist" is asserted to be absolutely true. Second, if we adopt the claim by Thomas Kuhn

that truth is relative only to a specific paradigm, the claim "Truth is relative only to a specific paradigm" is asserted to be absolutely true. Thus, absolute truth exists.


Speculation.


When I said "If you say..." that's a conditional statement. Do you know how conditional statements work?


It's called Hempel's Paradox. I provided you with a link. Apparently you didn't open it.

Let's try again. Imagine that I suppose that all ravens are black. This is logically equivalent to the statement all non-black things are not ravens. According to this logic, finding a green apple tends to confirm that all ravens are black since the apple is a non-black thing that isn't a raven. How do you resolve this paradox? And before you dismiss it because you don't understand it, let me point out that Carl Hempel "...was instrumental in the transformation of the dominant philosophical movement of the 1930s and 40s, which was known as 'logical positivism', into the more nuanced position known as 'logical empiricism'. His studies of induction, explanation, and rationality in science exerted a profound influence upon more than a generation of philosophers of science, many of whom became leaders of the discipline in their own right." So please, don't just shrug it off and choose ignorance.



I think you're the one who didn't understand. Let's look at a quote:

'"If you use p=0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30 percent of the time." That's assuming "the most optimistic view possible" in which every experiment is perfectly designed, with perfectly random allocation, zero bias, no multiple comparisons and publication of all negative findings. Colquhorn concludes: "If, as is often the case, experiments are underpowered, you will be wrong most of the time."
-----------------------
That doesn't say "in medical science." It says that p=0.05 isn't enough (mathematically speaking) to indicate that you have made any kind of a discovery at all. Even if everything else about the experiment is perfect, the result will be wrong at least 30 percent of the time. Do you need a math course too?

The article continues: "Thankfully science is self-correcting. Over time, findings are replicated or not replicated and the truth comes out in the wash." Is this a statement of fact or opinion? I think we can see that it is an opinion. What justification does he use to back this up? Nothing at all. I, however, have already pointed out that even known-fraudulent retracted papers continue to be quoted in scientific literature

years after they are retracted. I quote: "Our data show that even 5 years after their retraction, nearly half of Reuben’s articles are still being quoted and the retraction status is correctly mentioned in only one quarter of the citations.

"Reuben, a Massachusetts anesthesiologist who fabricated data, spent six months in federal prison for his crimes. In 2009, it was found he’d fabricated data in many papers, and now has 25 retractions."
------------------
So no, the data do not support the idea that science is self-correcting!!


Speculation.



Alas, it is you who are poorly educated. What I have posted is the New Riddle of Induction – those are the things you learn about when you go to university and study the philosophy of science.


Oh really. All right, let's say that yesterday the sun came up and today the sun came up. You will conclude that it's very likely that the sun will come up tomorrow. How do you conclude this? Let's look at the logic.

Premise: The sun has risen without fail every day for as long as anyone can remember.
Conclusion: The sun will rise again tomorrow.
----------------
Unfortunately, the premise does not support the conclusion. You can see this because the word "tomorrow" is mentioned in the conclusion, but this word is not mentioned in any of the premises. Accordingly, we will have to include the assumption:

Assumption: Things will happen tomorrow (the future) in the same way as they happened yesterday (in the past).

But how do you support this assumption? How do we know that the future will occur in the same way as it did in the past? The naive answer is that this method has worked well in the past and will, therefore, work well in the future. This is circular logic. You cannot prove that the past is a good guide to the future by assuming that the past is a good guide to the future.[/QUOTE]


I am sorry, but I am not going to write a book every time that I respond to you. I would need to screens to continually go back and forth to deal with your nonsense. New rule, since you keep abusing old ones. One subject at a time.

 

[Zosimus]

But you failed.

I feel as though I'm arguing with a Christian here. How exactly does posting a link in which real scientists examine forensic science and find it wanting result in me failing?

I see, I understand the reading comprehension fail of yours. There were two objects in your clause with Julia, a car and a dress, or a month and a country, before the comma. And the wrong one was just before the comma. The word "content" which the word "which" obviously applied to, directly preceded the comma. As I said reading comprehension problems.

The sentence contains a dangling modifier. If you don't realize that, then your education is deficient.

But again the word "Uranus" directly precedes the comma. That implies that Uranus was doubled. You need to pick a better example to show that he was wrong.

That's exactly the point. Choices A, C, and E are wrong because they contain misplaced modifiers. Choice B is the best answer.

Please pay attention, only when challenged. There are going to be many ideas that we share and a sane person will not challenge. Would you challenge someone if he simply said 1 + 1 = 2? If not then your demand is hypocritical. One only needs to be ready to provide evidence for beliefs that are different or challenged.

This is not relevant. If you choose to challenge the claim for which I have provided ample evidence, you must do so with evidence of your own–not with a claim that you feel that it's wrong. Your emotions have no role in this matter.

I am sorry, but I am not going to write a book every time that I respond to you. I would need to screens to continually go back and forth to deal with your nonsense. New rule, since you keep abusing old ones. One subject at a time.

Yes, I understand perfectly well that you cannot respond to most (or possibly any) of the points I make. Why don't you pick a point that you think you can handle and try to respond to that. I'll take your lack of response to the rest as an admission of defeat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I feel as though I'm arguing with a Christian here. How exactly does posting a link in which real scientists examine forensic science and find it wanting result in me failing?

You misunderstood your own article.

The sentence contains a dangling modifier. If you don't realize that, then your education is deficient.

Not really, but you were incorrectly nit picking, as shown by your failed examples.

That's exactly the point. Choices A, C, and E are wrong because they contain misplaced modifiers. Choice B is the best answer.

No, you missed the point.

This is not relevant. If you choose to challenge the claim for which I have provided ample evidence, you must do so with evidence of your own–not with a claim that you feel that it's wrong. Your emotions have no role in this matter.

But you didn't. You only had an article that you did not understand.

Yes, I understand perfectly well that you cannot respond to most (or possibly any) of the points I make. Why don't you pick a point that you think you can handle and try to respond to that. I'll take your lack of response to the rest as an admission of defeat.

No, I don't care to correct you countless errors. When someone brings up excessive nonsense it gets tiresome. Bring up your claims one at a time and we can deal with them. If I have to go back and forth countless times to properly answer a confused person's post it is just too much work. I have better things to do.

 

[Zosimus]

You misunderstood your own article.

Then let's try another one!

CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics

...criminal forensics has a deeper problem of basic validity. Bite marks, blood-splatter patterns, ballistics, and hair, fiber and handwriting analysis sound compelling in the courtroom, but much of the "science" behind forensic science rests on surprisingly shaky foundations. Many well-established forms of evidence are the product of highly subjective analysis by people with minimal credentials—according to the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, no advanced degree is required for a career in forensics. And even the most experienced and respected professionals can come to inaccurate conclusions, because the body of research behind the majority of the forensic sciences is incomplete, and the established methodologies are often inexact. "There is no scientific foundation for it," says Arizona State University law professor Michael Saks. "As you begin to unpack it you find it's a lot of loosey-goosey stuff."
-----------------
Why stop there? Let's try another one.

Report on Forensic Science Challenges Accuracy of Evidence Analyses

f you think forensic science is always accurate and results in mistake-proof crime convictions as portrayed on "CSI" and other TV crime dramas, a new report by the National Research Council strongly indicates otherwise.

The report says that many forensic methods relied upon by police and prosecutors such as hair samples and blood spatters, are often mishandled by poorly trained technicians.
----------------------
Not convinced? Let's try more!


Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions


Trial transcripts were sought for all 156 exonerees identified as having trial testimony by forensic analysts, of which 137 were located and reviewed. These trials most commonly included testimony concerning serological analysis and microscopic hair comparison, but some included bite mark, shoe print, soil, fiber, and fingerprint comparisons, and several included DNA testing. This study found that in the bulk of these trials of innocent defendants - 82 cases or 60% - forensic analysts called by the prosecution provided invalid testimony at trial - that is, testimony with conclusions misstating empirical data or wholly unsupported by empirical data. This was not the testimony of a mere handful of analysts: this set of trials included invalid testimony by 72 forensic analysts called by the prosecution and employed by 52 laboratories, practices, or hospitals from 25 states. Unfortunately, the adversarial process largely failed to police this invalid testimony. Defense counsel rarely cross-examined analysts concerning invalid testimony and rarely obtained experts of their own. In the few cases in which invalid forensic science was challenged, judges seldom provided relief. This evidence supports efforts to create scientific oversight mechanisms for reviewing forensic testimony and to develop clear scientific standards for written reports and testimony.
-----------------
Read 'em and weep, my friend.

 

[dad]

And since we have the decay products from that past, it shows the laws we have were operating in that past.

Prove that these so called products were created by decay? Now please do not say 'gee, things now decay and make stuff, so all stuff must have come by decay'.

 

[dad]

If there weren't time there, the photon would never be able to travel here.

Praytell, if there were no time as we know and experience it here, how could it possibly 'take time' to travel or do anything? Obviously on earth and area time does exist, so it will take time moving here.

If time were different there, then the photons would be released at different rates, at different wavelengths, and at different luminosities. They aren't. They are the same as light produced here.

That is rather silly. We only see it all HERE where there is time. It unfolds accordingly here. WE cannot see anything out of time because we are IN time!

Also, please evidence the fishbowl.

The fishbowl is just another way to reference limits..in this case the limits refer to earth and area, perhaps you could get your head around the concept if you thought of fishbowl as the area and spacetime of the solar system--or some area somewhat bigger than included the solar system.

Then, we turn the question around for you and ask you to evidence any identical spacetime beyond this fishbowl zone. Remember that looking from this fishbowl out beyond where we see some phenomena like bent light, we could not attribute it to the things we know here such as gravitational lensing. After all, if we do not have time there as we know it, we cannot know distances or sizes. You would not know what distance or size a galaxy was. Nor would we know that our fishbowl laws applied there. All you have done and can do is sit in the fishbowl and assign reasons of the fishbowl to the unknown.

 

[dad]

Fingerprints and ballistics and DNA analysis will continue to work and continue to convict people even though you bemoan the fact that evidence works. If you wish to establish that certain lines of evidence are unreliable, you have to do it scientifically, not on mere faith.

Too bad you have no fingerprints from Adam or Moses or anyone at all from the former times eh? No DNA either. None.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Prove that these so called products were created by decay? Now please do not say 'gee, things now decay and make stuff, so all stuff must have come by decay'.

Well by that argument you must let the criminal free from jail, because any assertion that his fingerprints were found at the scene must overcome the argument that we cannot know there is no other way to make those fingerprints . . . therefore we must not convict him.

We must forego sowing seed to have crops because we cannot know seeds will grow into crops again this year.

We must forego trusting in the Bible; just because its message of hope and salvation has helped others in the past is no guarantee we can trust it in the future.

We must forego faith in God; just because He has always been faithful in the past is no guarantee He will be faithful in the future.

Your logic might suggest those things. . . or you might choose at times to not use your radical skepticism and accept instead of deny some of those things and thereby be inconsistent . . .

But as for me, I accept the weight of evidence, the preponderance of probabilities, and that includes the reasonableness of saying that the products of radioactive decay being present indicates how much and how long the radioactive decay took place.

 

[dad]

Well by that argument you must let the criminal free from jail, because any assertion that his fingerprints were found at the scene must overcome the argument that we cannot know there is no other way to make those fingerprints . . . therefore we must not convict him.

Actually, the fact that DNA as we know it and such may not have existed in Noah's day has nothing to do with letting criminals do anything.

We must forego sowing seed to have crops because we cannot know seeds will grow into crops again this year.

We must forego trusting in the Bible; just because its message of hope and salvation has helped others in the past is no guarantee we can trust it in the future.

We must forego faith in God; just because He has always been faithful in the past is no guarantee He will be faithful in the future.

Scripture assures us His promises are true and forever. The same is absolutely not true for this present world.

But as for me, I accept the weight of evidence, the preponderance of probabilities, and that includes the reasonableness of saying that the products of radioactive decay being present indicates how much and how long the radioactive decay took place.

In other words you chose to believe our presentstatedunnit. No rhyme, no reason, and despite the bible.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Actually, the fact that DNA as we know it and such may not have existed in Noah's day has nothing to do with letting criminals do anything.
Scripture assures us His promises are true and forever. The same is absolutely not true for this present world.
In other words you chose to believe our presentstatedunnit. No rhyme, no reason, and despite the bible.

I'm mildly curious about your own personal reasons for trusting that the Bible is indeed the word of God given that you reject all evidence that disagrees with anything you happen to believe anyway. It seems to me that, given your record of denying evidence, you are left without any reasons for accepting the Bible, because after all, you can't trust evidence.

 

[dad]

I'm mildly curious about your own personal reasons for trusting that the Bible is indeed the word of God given that you reject all evidence that disagrees with anything you happen to believe anyway.

Rather than pretend any evidence disagrees with me, you should try to admit there is only wild fables from science rather than proof of the smallest sort for the cause of rotation of the earth and retrograde orbit 'planets' in space.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Rather than pretend any evidence disagrees with me, you should try to admit there is only wild fables from science rather than proof of the smallest sort for the cause of rotation of the earth and retrograde orbit 'planets' in space.

Sorry, you don't get to tell me what I "should" do. In fact, when you say science only has fables, you are bearing false witness, because science uses evidence.

You always say that science cannot trust the evidence they trust, which is an admission on your part that they do, at least use evidence. So you don't even have the excuse of ignorance for your misrepresentation.