• Candelestine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      By legal standards, hundreds of eyewitnesses is great evidence!

      Actually no. Eyewitness is always one of the worst kinds of evidence, and quantity makes little difference. It remains very easy to argue that Bob just very closely resembles the killer. If we have actually good evidence of him being elsewhere that day, say he went to work and worked all day, maybe was on camera, clocked in and got paid, etc, then that would pretty soundly crush your hundreds of eyewitnesses.

    • Bouchtroubouli@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is there “no evidence” that using a parachute helps prevent injuries when jumping out of planes? This was the conclusion of a cute paper in the BMJ, which pointed out that as far as they could tell, nobody had ever done a study proving parachutes helped. Their point was that “evidence” isn’t the same thing as “peer-reviewed journal articles”. So maybe we should stop demanding journal articles, and accept informal evidence as valid?

      Well…

      https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=do+parachute+help+prevent+injuries%3F&btnG=

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      OP link seems to be a personal blog.

      As soon as I saw the 90s website and conspiracy level picture I closed the link without reading.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          And he’s so proud of it that it was shut down when journalists “doxxed him” by saying what his real name was?

          I googled him tho, and he’s not a researcher or has ever done anything notable than that long rambling blog, he was so proud of he shut it down when he found it would be associated with him.

          Probably because of all the alt right bullshit and anti science shit he’s posted.

          “It is the one place I know of online where you can have civil conversations among people with a wide range of views,” said David Friedman, an economist and legal scholar who was a regular part of the discussion. Fellow commenters on the site, he noted, represented a wide cross-section of viewpoints. “They range politically from communist to anarcho-capitalist, religiously from Catholic to atheist, and professionally from a literal rocket scientist to a literal plumber — both of whom are interesting people.”

          The voices also included white supremacists and neo-fascists. The only people who struggled to be heard, Dr. Friedman said, were “social justice warriors.” They were considered a threat to one of the core beliefs driving the discussion: free speech.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html

          He told alt right tech bros what they wanted to hear, and you think that qualifies him to speak for the scientific community?

          He’s Joe Rogaine if he was smart enough to get a degree, but still dumb enough to rant about other shit he has no clue about

          Fucking Ben Carlson is a pretty good comparison to this guy