Is it me or is this site in its death throes?

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Bowser, Jul 17, 2017.

  1. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,879
    No. Two people observing the same event is not "reproducing" anything. To be reproducible, the observation would have to be made by different people on different occasions. That's why eyewitness accounts are such poor evidence. The only reliable way to observe the past is through the artefacts that it leaves behind.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,480
    It's a reproduced event, Every time. There's no way around this. And flaming is against the rules. I suggest you refrain from it.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,480
    No..the witnessing of the event is multiple--ie. not one event. Hence they are reproduced occasions of witnessing the event. This is basic common sense. And this is why multiple eyewitness accounts that corrobrate each other are such strong evidence.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Certainly - I will request James to post the full content of what he stated here, out of respect for him having said that in the privacy of the Moderators forum.

    I will also advise James R to review the infraction I am issuing you for continued Trolling and failure to follow the previous warnings he gave you.
     
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,879
    The witnessing of one event is still one event. That's mathematics, son. You can't argue with mathematics.

    Multiple witnesses may have similar biases, they may collude, etc. - which is why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable.
     
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,480
    Reported for issuing bogus infractions again. He has history of doing this to me.
     
  10. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You dont know? You too were instrumental in giving some number out of 95, because you were of the opinion that paddoboy had sound science knowledge....quite ludicrous.

    I am not whinning, you are arrogantly scrapping around.
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  11. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Kittamaru,


    This one is bad, you are an active participant in this fight, you cannot infract. Yes you can recommend to James or other Mod.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Ah, so you are complaining about infraction points? I believe the rules tell you what to do if you disagreed... ah, what do you know, they do.

    Yep, you are whining.

    Oh, really? Hum, I must have missed that in our rules - surely you can point out where that is said?
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,480
    Yes, and one that was reproduced by two different people.

    Which is why it is so "unreliable" in court trials, news reports, and history. Yeah..so unreliable. lol!
     
  14. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Just so it is on record in case you attempt to edit it... you are now saying that the witnessing of one event by two different people is the same as said event being carried out by two people.
     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,480
    Where did I say that? Shouldn't you be infracted for claiming I said something I didn't say?
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  16. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    So a rule must tell you that when you fight with a member vociferously, and when that member takes you on with same vigour, it is absolute abuse of your power as Mod to infract him.

    That's a looser's play.
     
  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,879
    That's not what reproduction means.

    It isn't. Innocent people get convicted by lying witnesses. The courts would much rather have hard evidence.

    I used to work at a police academy and I was involved in an experiment about eyewitness reports. Somebody ran into the room and took something out of somebody else's gym bag. He was described as tall and short, dark-haired and light-haired, wearing a black or blue or red jacket. He took a camera or a book or a wallet. (In fact, he took nothing.)

    That's your "reliable" eyewitness testimony.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  18. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,480
    And yet criminals get arrested and convicted on eyewitness testimony all the time. So damn unreliable...lol!
     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,879
    As I said, witnesses lie and innocent people get convicted.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  20. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    I do believe I said I already submit it to James R for review - if you feel that is somehow insufficient, or that I otherwise acted inappropriately, I suggest you take it up with the Administration, rather than whining about it in public (which is something the Site Rules do, in fact, cover)
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,480
    Not near as often as witnesses being truthful and guilty people being convicted.
     
  22. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Criminals also get arrested without eyewitness testimony all the time... and innocent people are convicted (and even sentenced to death) on incorrect, falsified, or otherwise erroneous eye-witness testimony.

    Yes, I would say that is rather unreliable - it ends innocent lives.

    You are making a solid claim here - support it.

    I counter that eye witness misidentification has resulted in numerous erroneous convictions:
    https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/

    Further evidence for the problems with eye-witness testimony:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.html

    Some additional reading:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

    http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=4521253

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/18/eyewitness-evidence-wrongful-conviction

    https://public.psych.iastate.edu/gl...yewitness_Identification_ A_Policy_Review.pdf

    All come to a strikingly similar conclusion - eye witnesses memory is easily misled by bias and other influences, and is far too unreliable to be given the weight it currently has.

    So... 73% of the 239 wrongful convictions - 175 innocent people sent to prison for crimes they did not commit. And that's just of these 239 cases that have been retried.
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,480
    Doesn't even come close to the number of convictions of the guilty based in eyewitness testimony. Those must number in the tens of thousands.
     

Share This Page