/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9895242
Sounds like evidence to me

>>9895242
>is criminal evidence actually hypothesis?
define "criminal evidence" and "hypothesis"

>>9895247
Prosecutor hypothesizes in court when says they are presenting evidence. Seems as if they might be skipping a few stages here. Experimentation would be to see if the accused commits under similar conditions

>>9895247
And evidence i forgot, would be after analysis

>>9895244
Could just imagine someone getting set up after an hypothesis, who was innocent, and then when they were set up they'd say to run the hypothesis again, that it was not them and that when they where set up it was spare of the moment and out of character. And they'd say they can't run the hypothesis again because he knows about it, and that he wouldn't commit. And then he'd say they are provoking crime by not telling him and to stop crime they could disclose it to him, and he should not commit again

>>9895266
In that case that would be an observation coupled with a hypothesis.

>>9895464
An observation and then a hypothesis.

forensic evidence is almost entirely pseudoscience. eyewitness testimony is completely garbage and it should frighten literally everyone that it's still used at all in the legal system

>>9895606
I agree with you on eyewitnesses, but often they're all we've got. In the case that someone was mugged in broad daylight, I think we can trust the masses to provide a consistent summation of the events, provided there's no political motive.

But what's your issue with forensic evidence?

>>9895606
Lots of things are entirely pseudoscience according to dumb lience. Same would be for eyewitness accounts of dumb lience (science) because antennas work because they are named after ant ears, solar panels work because the sun is in the solar system, and because Tesla/and or Edison claimed they invented electricity when he/they copied it from storms

>>9895665
>But what's your issue with forensic evidence?
a lot of it has either no evidence basis or very shoddy evidence basis

DNA analysis is about the only proven, reliable forensic methodology. Ballistic comparisons mostly work but have single-digit false positive rates. Latent fingerprint analysis has false-positive rates approaching 5%. Bitemark analysis is unfounded garbage. Footwear analysis has no evidence to support it. Hair analysis has in some studies had false positive rates as high as 11%.

and even if multiple people see a thing, i still don't trust eyewitnesses on the details. i would trust that they saw, say, a robbery. i might trust that they saw a male. but any details on what he was wearing or what he looked like or what he said? nah.

>>9895684
Analyzing the so called "evidence" it's self instead of the accused and nameing it evidence hmmmm. And then bluffing scientific method using the experimentation that developed the DNA analysis and not experimenting on the accused, owwwwwwwwwwww. And then even claiming analysis (second on the bottom on the left) dumb reptilian Illuminati

>>9895764
Reptilian Illuminati omg. they'll just discredit this post for being digital

>>9895684
That's fair enough, but I'd say forensic scientists should still use fingerprinting, ballistic comparisons, bitemarks, hair, etc. with an appropriately sized grain of salt. I get the feeling that overzealous prosecutors are more of a problem than the forensic methods themselves.

Congrats OP, you have noticed that a legal trial is not a scientific experiment. They are different things.

>>9895296

Oh now i know what you mean. Depends on the country and the court system and the judge.

>>9895939
Quite the contrary. Just take a scientific observation and hypothesis to a court of law and present it as evidence for the judge to conclude

>>9895242
No kidding!

>>9895242
In 2011, I made a hypothesis about adding a negative time mode such that the positive and negative time modes were relatively scaled according to the golden ratio. The fact that dark energy in the universe is observed confirmed an earlier hypothesis about accelerating time and ,as a matter of theoretical inquiry, I went on to consider a second hypothetical proposition. Then I examined what you can do with the golden ratio, and I got so many positive results, I just kept going.

Recently, I used the Schrodinger equation as a control to get a classical limit, and then I made an "experimental equation" which has one one totally imaginary mode of propagation. Then I computed some characteristic energies of the modes and found they were the same as the energies of a recently discovered negative mode in the quantum optics. My finding that the energy shift of the negative optical mode is exactly the same as the energy of the "experimental equation" is really great. I described actual data, accurately, with an energy function. My interpretation for the energy shift in the experiment being 100% caused by the dump of the energy is a certain volume is really great. Everything about it makes sense, and the numbers work out exactly pretty much right.

Will they reward it?

>The Golden Ratio in the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://2occatl.net/Physics/GoldenRatio__20180726.pdf

>>9895830
>I get the feeling that overzealous prosecutors are more of a problem than the forensic methods themselves.
Overzealous prosecutors are absolutely a big part of the problem, but the issue is also that a lot of the forensics teams are basically working for the prosecutors, so they come under a LOT of pressure from those same prosecutors to come up with evidence supporting their case. It's a known problem.

And in some cases I'd agree with you that the methods can be used with the appropriate caution, but some of them? They should be wiped off the map. The legal standard for criminal trials, "beyond a reasonable doubt", is often expressed by lawyers as a 98% or 99% confidence that someone is guilty (let's put aside the fact that guilt is an unquantifiable metric for a moment). If your forensic method has a false positive rate higher than your expressed threshold for doubt in the case, it should be taken off the table immediately.

u r a charrloten and a fraud who uses words on the internet to convince themselves of their own absent brilliance. :)

>>9895939
Okay they are different things but both have reptilian Illuminati, both have research, both have evidence, both have analysis, and one has experimentation while the other has experimentation in the procedure to trick aliens. Both have observation and both have hypothesis but one names the hypothesis evidence to trick aliens and the other names it hypothesis instead of obvious.

>>9896438
>>9896438
>your expressed threshold for doubt in the case
as in... "any reasonable doubt"

>>9896454
Actually i asked a question

>>9895247
define "define", fgt pls

>>9898803
>fgt
Why the homophobia?