= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
knb comments on The things we know that we know ain't so - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (148)
I'm not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but the whole area of forensic "science", is actually on very shaky foundations.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4325774.html
Freudian psychoanalysis is (sadly) still the dominant version of applied psychology in many countries (Argentina is one).
Freud and Lacan are still very big influences in postmodern philosophy (and by association, much of the Humanities), in spite of the fact that their theories are either demonstrably false or unfalsifiable.
I was stunned to read Freudian viewpoints expressed in my Women's Studies textbook in college. But I was even more stunned by a favorable passage about crystal healing(!) of all things.
I think the criticism of "forensic science," generally in the linked Popular Mechanics article is overblown. Much forensic science is very good.
Fingerprints can be matched by computer. The only real dispute there is partial print matches. There was a scandal regarding very poor fingerprinting techniques; there have also been a couple of incidents of outright fraud. But if the prints match, dude, it's you. And there are many competent fingerprint examiners. I've never seen a computer mismatch out of thousands of examples.
I have some expertise in collision reconstruction. It's certainly true that some techniques used are not as good as others; expressing solid confidence in pedestrian throw is probably a bad idea. But collision reconstruction based on critical speed scuff marks and various other methods are solid physics.
Forensic accounting is valid science. Forensic chemists test for drugs and alcohol with very high accuracy. Properly done ballistics testing is good science. Hair sample comparisons are good science, if not oversold. DNA is good science, but not if you screw up your Bayesian analysis.
Some people testify to silly things. Some people make mistakes. Some people are willing to say things they know aren't true. Some scientists are underqualified. Some fields - like forensic odontology - lack the rigor of others, and should not be allowed in court barring a prior showing that the person can do what they say they can do.
But the idea that forensic science is "mostly created by cops who were guided by little more than common sense" seems quite misguided to me.
The sentence doesn't seem misguided so much as it being used as a complaint. Try:
"Biology was mostly created by nature lovers who were guided by little more than common sense."
"Computer science was mostly created by math geeks who were guided by little more than common sense."
"History was mostly created by story tellers who were guided by little more than common sense."
I've heard that, until relatively recently, forensic arson investigation was actually complete nonsense.
I have had the unfortunate experience to watch, not once, but twice the misuse of forensics to convict someone, in direct opposition to not one, two or three witnesses to the contrary, but four or five people who had testified that a person could not have committed a crime... Yet, the CSI Effect was in full play, and it was not until the arrest of the actual criminal in the first case and DNA exoneration in the second that the people involved were acquitted (and in one case, released. Thankfully after a very short stay in county jail, before they were moved to an actual prison).
My family also has a larger number of lawyers than normal, and this was something that was driven into us at an early age "Forensics are a bunch of BS for the most part". Now, that lesson was also tempered with another side "Forensics are a bunch of BS, Unless they help out your case"
Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. I might be more likely to trust reliable forensic evidence than eyewitness testimony.
I agree, but I think our entire system of Justice is broken. It doesn't rely nearly enough on the right kind of evidence and the term "Peers" (as in jury of your) is all but meaningless.
The fact that it is supposed to deal in evidence is, however, the right place to begin.
Why would you be surprised to find abject nonsense in a Women's Studies textbook?
Well, I'm surprised to find that kind of weapons grade nonsense anywhere, still more so in a university coursebook. But I was especially surprised that they would publish nonsense from such a misogynistic author as Freud.
Why was crystal healing brought up? What context? This is fascinating.
It was in a sidebar article about how modern scientific medicine is male-centric, and female holistic/alternative healing practices are marginalized and treated as hokum in our society. But in other cultures, female holistic healers are valued members of society. Then it talked about different New Age healing rituals. The only one I really remember was crystal healing, which they said was an ancient Japanese ritual.
When was this? Do you remember what the book was called?
I took the class in 2007 I think.
Bizarre. Did the text book present this as fact or was it a point raised for consideration and debate?
Depressing because a good gender studies class would be such a great thing for schools to offer.
I think that Gender Studies classes are hard to find decent instructors for. I am having to file a complaint of discrimination against mine. Rather than raising things as points for consideration, she raised all manner of things as fact (without room for discussion), and when I began to call her on these "Facts" (A simple wikipedia entry usually sufficed to show that her "Facts" were completely bogus)edit she forbade me to fact check her work in class (on my laptop)/edit. When I later spoke to one of the UCSC gender studies instructors, she said that this was a problem in Gender studies. That often the instructors are militant feminists with bones to pick... So sad.
Interdisciplinary fields are always a bit wooly anyway. There's no reason why a smart, motivated person couldn't do sociology with an emphasis on gender, or philosophy with an emphasis on gender, or so on. And if you don't have an established field for your line of inquiry, you're not going to have rigorous standards for what constitutes good work. So gender studies ends up with standards hovering somewhere between sociology and postmodernist critical theory.
I completely agree. A UCSC professor named Donna Haraway, who wrote A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Social-Feminism in the late-Twentieth Century is an excellent example of a professor who is capable of putting a gender emphasis upon the issues of sexual roles in society, sociology, and history.
It was she to whom I went to discuss the issue after discovering she was at UC Santa Cruz (I had already read the book a few years prior to the Class with the crazy teacher).
I had taken a women's studies class because my ex-wife died from being sexually exploited while strung out on crack cocaine (typical crack whore story), and I figured that I might have something to learn from it. Dr. Haraway informed me that I was expecting too much, as most women's studies teachers are incredibly biased and emotionally driven and don't take to facts too well.
I don't agree with much of Dr. Haraway's politics, but at least she has sound arguments for her position, rather than appeals to emotion or ignorance. Now, some of the premises of her arguments I would question, but that is the whole point isn't it. That we argue the premises and from those we attempt to form a sound argument, rather than throwing together an argument that consists of "It would be horrible if it were any other way!"
You write these brief comments that are incredibly intriguing. Please post more about your life.
Maybe some day after I have made more in-person acquaintance of more people on the list.
I think you didn't finish a sentence. What happened when you started correcting her?
Duh! She forbade me to use my computer to fact check in class... And, she got really, really pissed off at anything I said (now arranging my facts before class by listening to what she was harping on about in the class prior to mine) that contradicted her rather bizarre world view.
I later discovered, from the dept. chair, that she had a paranoid episode right after she had been granted tenure. She's been under pretty intense pressure to retire since then...
I've never received a grade below a B in English or Composition classes since the 6th grade, yet she gave me a D, simply because I objected to her irrational world view where we needed to give up all technology and return to nature. She was very much one of those "We must honor the Noble Savage" types.
I've found this sort of attitude common in any class with "Studies" in the name.
My worst experience was the communist teacher of East Asian studies (not himself East Asian) who knew nothing of Asia besides Communist China and spent most of the course on propaganda. This was 2006.
The professor took to blatantly ignoring any student with a comment or question after a single questioning word about Communism.
The world is indeed full of insane people.
All such stories of academic delirium I've heard so far took place in the US. Indeed, while all of today's nations produce their share of bogus pseudoscience in the soft fields, Americans shouldn't despair so much; their academia appears to be in an uniquely bad situation here.
How did the rest of the class react to you?