7 ms·

I think if you read this article you'll see (at least part of) the answer. Not only does a given action have to cause a definable result, the medium upon which

by agf 4y ago

I think if you read this article you'll see (at least part of) the answer. Not only does a given action have to cause a definable result, the medium upon which the result is deposited has to provide enough detail to read the result back off it, and the people reading the result have to be able to be consistent and accurate in their analysis of that result. With bite marks, the skin has to hold the bite mark (which it doesn't) and experts have to be able to map it back to real human teeth (which they can't). With blood spatter, there are analogous problems.

JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Which sounds miles from 'have no basis in evidence'. So that might have been a little hyperbolic.
- snapcaster 4y ago
  I'm not sure why you're trying to play devil's advocate on that. The things they are claiming about the analysis techniques literally have no basis in evidence. Saying "blood spatters follow laws of physics" has nothing to do with what the experts are doing now
  - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
    ...and I countered with "the physics surely have validity", which the plentiful science done to date has corroborated. Not playing devil's advocate; just doing some simple searches and calling out hyperbole. These days folks have replaced science with advocacy. You know, that thing lawyers do to convince a jury. To the point folks think that you can arrive at a conclusion with advocacy. Instead of looking at the data. I'd ramble on about how the world is going to pot, because folks thing a sarcastic remark or clever-sounding turn of phrase is 'just as good' as facts. But oh well.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      You confused the GP statement about “blood spatter analysis” with a statement about “blood spatter”. If someone critiques astrology you don’t reply that “planets follow physics”.
    - snapcaster 4y ago
      "Blood spatter analysis" is not a physics based discipline. The other comment responding to you with the analogy about astrology is good explanation of what is wrong with your reasoning
- ouid 4y ago
  not so, if i square a number, and get 4, There is no basis in evidence for the claim that the number I squared was 2. it could equally likely have been -2. Science is capable of making no stronger a claim than that.

by agf 4y ago

JoeAltmaier 4y ago

Which sounds miles from 'have no basis in evidence'. So that might have been a little hyperbolic.

snapcaster 4y ago
I'm not sure why you're trying to play devil's advocate on that. The things they are claiming about the analysis techniques literally have no basis in evidence. Saying "blood spatters follow laws of physics" has nothing to do with what the experts are doing now
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  ...and I countered with "the physics surely have validity", which the plentiful science done to date has corroborated. Not playing devil's advocate; just doing some simple searches and calling out hyperbole. These days folks have replaced science with advocacy. You know, that thing lawyers do to convince a jury. To the point folks think that you can arrive at a conclusion with advocacy. Instead of looking at the data. I'd ramble on about how the world is going to pot, because folks thing a sarcastic remark or clever-sounding turn of phrase is 'just as good' as facts. But oh well.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    You confused the GP statement about “blood spatter analysis” with a statement about “blood spatter”. If someone critiques astrology you don’t reply that “planets follow physics”.
  - snapcaster 4y ago
    "Blood spatter analysis" is not a physics based discipline. The other comment responding to you with the analogy about astrology is good explanation of what is wrong with your reasoning
ouid 4y ago
not so, if i square a number, and get 4, There is no basis in evidence for the claim that the number I squared was 2. it could equally likely have been -2. Science is capable of making no stronger a claim than that.