3 ms·

How could junk science end up being implemented? Who oversees this stuff?

by verisimi 4y ago

mjhay 4y ago
No one, really, except for the judge (who has training in law, not science).
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  We don’t have to appoint lawyers to the bench, but it’s a hard addiction to shake off. (I’d argue we shouldn’t, after all, anyone, including judges, can hire out for legal advice as required)
polygamous_bat 4y ago
A big criticism that I have heard from "defund the police" folks is that a lot of police departments across the country have more money than sense and accountability. If you are inclined to believe this statement, it is inevitable that they are, in best case, swindled by hucksters selling snake oil, and in worst case, are dabbling in corruption to enrich themselves.
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  If you have a big wallet and someone telling you that if you don't spend all of that money this paycheck you'll get less next paycheck, then you'll buy snake oil if you have to just to make sure next week you still get paid the same.
BryantD 4y ago
NIST apparently does some work in the field, although they don’t have oversight authority. They recently discovered that bite mark analysis is worthless: https://www.nist.gov/spo/forensic-science-program/bitemark-analysis-nist-scientific-foundation-review https://www.nist.gov/spo/forensic-science-program/bitemark-a...
- Something1234 4y ago
  NIST has some very good reasons not to be a regulatory agency. They depend on a lot of cooperation with industry to build some very high tech devices.
vorpalhex 4y ago
A common test for these methods is that they undergo peer review and are reasonably accepted. Many of them DID pass peer review. They had papers written on how well they work. Obviously something in that peer review process has (yet again) led us to junk science.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  This example was already being used in cases before the original study was even published for exploratory review.
- linuxftw 4y ago
  Peer review is just people looking at a report and deciding whether or not your conclusions and findings are based on the data you reported. What it's not is replication or in any way an indication that the original research was independent. The person reviewing your report has no way to know if your data is totally fabricated or not unless they try to replicate your study.

How could junk science end up being implemented? Who oversees this stuff?

mjhay 4y ago

No one, really, except for the judge (who has training in law, not science).

Scoundreller 4y ago
We don’t have to appoint lawyers to the bench, but it’s a hard addiction to shake off. (I’d argue we shouldn’t, after all, anyone, including judges, can hire out for legal advice as required)

polygamous_bat 4y ago

A big criticism that I have heard from "defund the police" folks is that a lot of police departments across the country have more money than sense and accountability. If you are inclined to believe this statement, it is inevitable that they are, in best case, swindled by hucksters selling snake oil, and in worst case, are dabbling in corruption to enrich themselves.

BizarroLand 4y ago
If you have a big wallet and someone telling you that if you don't spend all of that money this paycheck you'll get less next paycheck, then you'll buy snake oil if you have to just to make sure next week you still get paid the same.

BryantD 4y ago

NIST apparently does some work in the field, although they don’t have oversight authority. They recently discovered that bite mark analysis is worthless: https://www.nist.gov/spo/forensic-science-program/bitemark-analysis-nist-scientific-foundation-review https://www.nist.gov/spo/forensic-science-program/bitemark-a...

Something1234 4y ago
NIST has some very good reasons not to be a regulatory agency. They depend on a lot of cooperation with industry to build some very high tech devices.

vorpalhex 4y ago

A common test for these methods is that they undergo peer review and are reasonably accepted. Many of them DID pass peer review. They had papers written on how well they work. Obviously something in that peer review process has (yet again) led us to junk science.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
This example was already being used in cases before the original study was even published for exploratory review.
linuxftw 4y ago
Peer review is just people looking at a report and deciding whether or not your conclusions and findings are based on the data you reported. What it's not is replication or in any way an indication that the original research was independent. The person reviewing your report has no way to know if your data is totally fabricated or not unless they try to replicate your study.