Oct 31, 2022 05:48 PM
(This post was last modified: Oct 31, 2022 05:49 PM by C C.)
Why Is Bad Science Allowed in the Courtroom?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...-courtroom
KEY POINTS: A new report from NIST finds that bite mark analysis is unreliable and not supported by science. People cannot be identified by teeth marks, teeth marks don't leave reliable patterns, and there is no standard way of measuring them. Judges and lawyers who still use bite mark analysis may be responding to a high need for closure... (MORE - details)
An Open-Letter to All Cranks
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...ll-cranks/
EXCERPTS: I get lots of e-mail, sometimes from people who want to convince me that their pet theory has merit [...] I think to an extent ... they are all absorbing the same narrative from the culture. So here is my generic response to all cranks, past and future.
Dear Crank,
I use that term not as a personal attack, but as an accurate description of your behavior. I want you to understand why that behavior is not serving you well, and what you can do the escape from a cycle of self-destructive, and frankly annoying, behavior...
[...] I understand you have a theory with which you are very impressed, and it includes a lot of math and facts and details. You may even have some scientific education and background. But if you think you have somehow seen through the fog, and have proven that the world’s scientists have all been hopelessly wrong for the last century or so, then you are likely suffering from not only a lack of proper humility, but overwhelming hubris...
[...] What you apparently don’t understand is that the odds of such a thing are so vanishingly small, given the mountain of existing evidence, that it is overwhelmingly likely that you have simply made an error. Even in the extremely unlikely event that I am wrong, you are still not going about it correctly.
You now have one of two basic options. Option A, which you have apparently chosen so far, is to simply assume that you are an epic genius, far surpassing Galileo or Einstein, and that those who reject your brilliance are either too ignorant to understand it or too corrupt to admit it. But this is a dark path, and never leads anywhere good (whether you are ultimately right or not).
If you persist down this path what will happen is that scientists and scientific institutions will reject you, for no other reason then because you refuse to play by the rules. You may think this makes you a maverick, but it really only ensures your failure... (MORE - missing details)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...-courtroom
KEY POINTS: A new report from NIST finds that bite mark analysis is unreliable and not supported by science. People cannot be identified by teeth marks, teeth marks don't leave reliable patterns, and there is no standard way of measuring them. Judges and lawyers who still use bite mark analysis may be responding to a high need for closure... (MORE - details)
An Open-Letter to All Cranks
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...ll-cranks/
EXCERPTS: I get lots of e-mail, sometimes from people who want to convince me that their pet theory has merit [...] I think to an extent ... they are all absorbing the same narrative from the culture. So here is my generic response to all cranks, past and future.
Dear Crank,
I use that term not as a personal attack, but as an accurate description of your behavior. I want you to understand why that behavior is not serving you well, and what you can do the escape from a cycle of self-destructive, and frankly annoying, behavior...
[...] I understand you have a theory with which you are very impressed, and it includes a lot of math and facts and details. You may even have some scientific education and background. But if you think you have somehow seen through the fog, and have proven that the world’s scientists have all been hopelessly wrong for the last century or so, then you are likely suffering from not only a lack of proper humility, but overwhelming hubris...
[...] What you apparently don’t understand is that the odds of such a thing are so vanishingly small, given the mountain of existing evidence, that it is overwhelmingly likely that you have simply made an error. Even in the extremely unlikely event that I am wrong, you are still not going about it correctly.
You now have one of two basic options. Option A, which you have apparently chosen so far, is to simply assume that you are an epic genius, far surpassing Galileo or Einstein, and that those who reject your brilliance are either too ignorant to understand it or too corrupt to admit it. But this is a dark path, and never leads anywhere good (whether you are ultimately right or not).
If you persist down this path what will happen is that scientists and scientific institutions will reject you, for no other reason then because you refuse to play by the rules. You may think this makes you a maverick, but it really only ensures your failure... (MORE - missing details)