/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11376315

155KiB, 1400x1000, bf3.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 05:39:58 2020 No.11376315 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11376318 >>11376349 >>11376354 >>11376364 >>11377190

Psychology is not a science
IQ is not a science
Forensics is not a science
Economics is not a science
Nutrition/Dietary science is not a science
You cannot use statistics to demonstrate/prove anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 2020 05:42:14 No.11376318 Report

Quoted By: >>11376326

>>11376315
>You cannot use statistics to demonstrate/prove anything.

Oh yeah? What about this:

all OPs are cocksuckers
you are the OP
you suck cocks QED

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2020-02-10 at 9.46.0 (...).png, 35KiB, 1140x186

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 2020 05:46:18 No.11376326 Report

Quoted By:

>>11376318
That's not statistics but universal instantiation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 2020 05:59:42 No.11376343 Report

Quoted By: >>11376350

Iq is. The single best predictor of whether or not someone will have positive impact on society and somehow also the explanation as to why i am not an adult who Failed out of necessity but Rather infinite unrealized potential

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 2020 06:02:13 No.11376349 Report

Quoted By: >>11377200

>>11376315
>NOOOOOO STATISTICS ARENT REAL NOOOOOOOOOO
you don’t belong on a science board

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 2020 06:02:47 No.11376350 Report

Quoted By:

>>11376343
Cope :)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 2020 06:04:10 No.11376354 Report

Quoted By:

>>11376315
what about using statistics to predict things?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 2020 06:08:34 No.11376364 Report

Quoted By: >>11376406

>>11376315
>Forensics is not a science
>using scientific methods to secure evidence isn't science

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1572387870387.jpg, 43KiB, 602x602

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 2020 06:29:11 No.11376406 Report

Quoted By: >>11376409

>>11376364
>hurrr dis footprint look similar ehehehehehe
>me doing soience

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 2020 06:32:12 No.11376409 Report

Quoted By: >>11376416 >>11376418

>>11376406
Because they're not using several tools and chemicals that require knowledge in physics and chemistry or anything

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 2020 06:38:12 No.11376416 Report

Quoted By:

>>11376409
>Forensic science is at a crossroads. It is torn between the practices of science, which require empirical demonstration of the validity and accuracy of methods, and the practices of law, which accept methods based on historical precedent even if they have never been subjected to meaningful empirical validation. The field is in dire need of deep and meaningful attention from the broader scientific community. Without such guidance, forensic science and law enforcement risk withholding justice from both defendants and crime victims. The scientific community must step forward to promote, defend, and advocate for science in forensic science.

>The evolution of other forensic disciplines, particularly those related to pattern evidence, followed a different course, having been developed primarily within law enforcement environments or at the behest of law enforcement. Disciplines, such as fingerprints, firearms, and tool marks, blood-stain pattern analysis, tread-impression analysis, and bite mark analysis matured largely outside of the traditional scientific community during a time when admissibility standards for scientific evidence had yet to be formulated. Thus, admissibility of such evidence rightly or wrongly created judicial precedent in decisions that often did not—or could not—involve the level of research that would today be needed to establish scientific validity.
> The most egregious case is bite mark identification, which has been discredited by both scientific studies and false convictions based on the method. However, bite marks continue to be accepted in United States courts as a matter of precedent: that is, not because they are valid but because they were accepted in the past. As science—and forensic science more specifically—continues to advance, it becomes increasingly absurd to ask or expect lawyers, judges, and juries to take sole responsibility for critically evaluating the quality and validity of scientific evidence and testimony

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 2020 06:39:54 No.11376418 Report

Quoted By:

>>11376409
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/18/4541

>me spray science liquid on floor
>science glowy appears
>dis blood eh detective? ya it blood even though phenolphthalein reacts to many other commonly found household items.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 2020 16:56:50 No.11377190 Report

Quoted By:

>>11376315
How is IQ not a science? IQ tests have very high reliability as well as predictive validity.

>inb4: muh Taleb
That dumb arab has been debunked hundred times already: https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/01/08/nassim-taleb-on-iq/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 11 Feb 2020 16:59:33 No.11377200 Report

Quoted By:

>>11376349
Replication crisis
cope

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches