Bad arson science: We had a news story about a man that was in prison for over 20 years after he tried to save his family only to be charged with murder. There was no other evidence...

TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails

We had a news story about a man that was in prison for over 20 years after he tried to save his family only to be charged with murder. There was no other evidence other that the testimony of the scientist. But he was convicted because of bad science.
Arson science is finally realising that they were wrong and a lot of innocent people are finally getting out of prison.
Google "Bad arson science" and read all the stories.
It is sad when a man looses his family and then gets put in prison on "Bad arson science".
This is why I do not put my trust in science.

Penny MG Loc: Fresno, Texas

TrainNut wrote:

We had a news story about a man that was in prison... (show quote)

After your google suggestion.....wow...I don't blame you for not putting your trust in science. Things are not always how they appear. Very interesting (and sad). Thanks for the information.

Shutter Bugger

TrainNut wrote:

We had a news story about a man that was in prison... (show quote)

I saw that story some time ago. The problem was that
the arson "science", wasn't science at all.

Your camera is a product of many science disciplines. Do you not trust your camera?

It is a paradox that innocent men get convicted as
you are innocent until proven guilty. It seems to me that
something that does not exist (the guilt of an innocent man) can not be proven, however innocent men are convicted regularly, of crimes they do not commit. :|

TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails

Shutter Bugger wrote:

I saw that story some time ago. The problem was that
the arson "science", wasn't science at all.

Your camera is a product of many science disciplines. Do you not trust your camera?

It is a paradox that innocent men get convicted as
you are innocent until proven guilty. It seems to me that
something that does not exist (the guilt of an innocent man) can not be proven, however innocent men are convicted regularly, of crimes they do not commit. :|

Good post. Something to think about.
They misinterpreted the evidence.
I think we need a new name for interpretive science. It is very different than things that can be proven. :thumbup:

ole sarg Loc: south florida

AS I am sure you all know there are laws in science and hypothesis in science. Laws are immutable and hypothesis evolve.

Science in many ways does not present truth. What is presents is the best evidence something maybe true at a given moment.

TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails

ole sarg wrote:

AS I am sure you all know there are laws in science and hypothesis in science. Laws are immutable and hypothesis evolve.

Science in many ways does not present truth. What is presents is the best evidence something maybe true at a given moment.

"Science in many ways does not present truth."

So we should put people in prison because of that?

eye2eye Loc: Chicago, Illinois

TrainNut wrote:

We had a news story about a man that was in prison... (show quote)

Yeah, I don't trust that "science" crap either. I mean, cures for diseases, DNA evidence releasing innocent people, air travel, cell phones, computers. Yeah, I don't trust it.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

I don't think it's the science that's at fault but the justice system. There are very few absolute proven truths in science,if any.

Photoman74 Loc: Conroe Tx

S=Bumble Bee Can't Fly
S= Cranberries = Cancer
Eggs = bad for you.
Eggs = good for you.
Just wait.

TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails

Photoman74 wrote:

S=Bumble Bee Can't Fly
S= Cranberries = Cancer
Eggs = bad for you.
Eggs = good for you.
Just wait.

Cholesterol is bad.
Some cholesterol is good and some is bad.
How about the food pyramid, they turned that upside down?
Tomatoes are poisonous, no wait , it is the lead pots that are poisonous.(that one is really old.)

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

Photoman74 wrote:

S=Bumble Bee Can't Fly

This was an example used when I was at university to demonstrate why you need to be so pedantic when writting up scientific reports. Aerodynamics states that under certain conditions, flight will take place. It does not state that flight cannot take place under any other conditions. So whilst it's true to say that "a bumble bee can't fly according to the laws of aerodnamics", it is not true to say "According to the laws of aerodynamics a bumble bee can't fly".

It's not science that's at fault, it's peoples understanding of it.

Shutter Bugger

Wellhiem wrote:

This was an example used when I was at university ... (show quote)

I have studied aerodynamics from 3 different perspectives.

1. As a 7 to 17 year old who designed and built flying models.

2. Specific to what an Australian Commercial Pilot licence required in 1979.

3. Specific to what an Australian Aviation Maintenance Engineer required in 2005.

A house brick can fly, so a bee can fly.

There is no such thing as "Laws of Aerodynamics" and
the ''science" of aerodynamics does not "state" anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

KLM commenced operations on the 17th of May 1920.
QANTAS was founded 5 months later in November 1920.

QANTAS: 2nd oldest airline in existence. ZERO passenger
fatalities outside war... they say.

KLM has, however, killed hundreds of passengers.

Back on topic... I reckon the title of this thread would more accurate if it was.

"Lack Of Arson Science". Because it was lack of Science
that had an innocent (stupid possibly, but innocent) man
convicted.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

Shutter Bugger wrote:

I have studied aerodynamics from 3 different persp... (show quote)

1. Building and designing kites does not qualify you in the sciance of aerodynamics. You just need to know what works, not why it works.
2. Flying a plane does not require any knowledge of how the plane stays in the air, any more than driving a car requires a knowledge of how fuel is converted into forward momentum.
3. An Aviation Maintenance Engineer just needs to follow a procedure of checks and instructions. Not any knowledge of the science.
The science of aerodynamics STATES that as air speed increases, pressure decreases. It also STATES that if the pressure below an object is greater than the pressure above it, then lift will occur.

There is a mathematical equation that determines air pressures given air speeds, compares the two and determines the amount of lift and whether it is sufficient to cause an object of a given weight to rise. It is this equation that is called the law of aerodynamics.

Bees, bricks and helicopters do not pass this mathematical test and therefore do not fly aerodnamically.

Shutter Bugger

Wellhiem wrote:

1. Building and designing kites does not qualify y... (show quote)

LOL. you're a clod because:

1. I was not talking about kites. I did not mention kites.

2. You think "Flying a plane does not require any knowledge of how the plane stays in the air"... calling you a clod is an insult to clods.

3. Here in Australia an Aviation Maintenance Engineer
must study Aerodynamics and Aerodynamic control,
and is examined on those subjects, amongst other subjects, that cover electronics, chemistry, physics, maths and many others as well. They even study and are examined on a subject called "Human Factors" that covers the psychology and physiology of why humans make errors. You wellhiem, have an intelligence that is inversely proportional to the magnitude of your gigantic ignorance.

wellhiem wrote: "The science of aerodynamics STATES that as air speed increases, pressure decreases."

Just for the record you bloody nincompoop;
air pressure does not necessarily decrease
with air speed. In fact there are aircraft
structures designed to increase air pressure with an increase in airspeed... you idiot.

Your ignorance is so profound do not expect me to
respond to your posts again.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

Shutter Bugger wrote:

do not expect me to
respond to your posts again.

If only I could rely on that.