360
Weinstein victims’ fury as rape conviction overturned as Bragg commits to retry case
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
360 points (97.9% liked)
News
23406 readers
2173 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You really do not understand how science works. You are arguing that the test for uniqueness is the same as the test for uniformity.
If someone were to claim that every drop of water is unique, you would have a point. No one is claiming that. That is the claim about fingerprints and it is a claim which has never been tested to the satisfaction of anyone working in that field of science.
I'm not saying it's proven beyond a doubt, my point is that something that has turned out true the millions of times we have checked can't possibly be a myth.
You can say there's a possibility of it being wrong but shouldn't lump it in with antiquity gods just for the sake of your argument.
There's a whole range between fantasy and certain beyond a doubt, you should stop assuming I'm an idiot and ask yourself why you are so adamant about defending the extreme in such an abrasive manner.
Can't possibly be a myth? So you know for a fact that, based on the supposed millions of times that we have checked (have we checked millions of times? do you know?) no two of the estimated 100 billion people that have lived over the course of the past 200,000 years had the same fingerprints, yes? And you can present empirical evidence to support that claim? Because I'm really not sure how you can claim that with any sort of certainty based on a sample size of what is likely less than 1% of that number over the course of less than two centuries.
Otherwise, I think it could possibly be a myth.
I believe it's probably true. I don't believe it can be classified anywhere near the word myth since that implies it's almost certainly false.
People believe it's "probably true" that the world was created in 7 days. And they have only a little less credible evidence at their disposal than you do.
In our current discussion, I'm assuming based on the millions of times it has been true while you are assuming and declaring as truth based on one mystical scenario that has never been found. For all your talk about science, I don't think your reasoning is very thorough.
The above scenario would only apply to me if said people had also found millions of world's that were also created in seven days. It applies to you as is because your double finger print scenario is currently completely imaginary.
I'm going to leave it at that but if one of us is a zealot running on blind faith, I don't think it's me.
Yes, again, that's not how science works.
That's not how science works.
Except I'm not doing that at all. That would be the person referring to Francis Galton.
What's your new position then?
You started by claiming no two fingerprints are unique based on the fact that there is beyond a doubt a set of two identical pairs out there somewhere even though no such pairs have ever been found, a god pair if you will.
I never said it was beyond a doubt.
In fact, I said:
So I don't know why you're telling such a ridiculous lie.
Okay so what's your position? Its a spectrum I'm guessing? So what, you think there's a 50% chance that fingerprints aren't unique?
I literally just gave you my position and I will not continue this discussion any further until you acknowledge that you made a false claim about me.
I am acknowledging I made a false claim and I'm asking you to correct me by asking this question. What's your position? All you have told me is what your position isn't.
I'm not sure why you need to ask this because I made it very clear. It is a myth because it is not a provable claim and assuming something you can't show to be valid is true is the antithesis of the scientific method. The burden of proof is on the claimant and so far, no one who has made that claim has been able to back it up. Until they can, it's a myth.
By being an unprovable claim, the burden of absolute proof cannot be on either side since that would constitute an appeal to ignorance.
This may vary by region but in mine, saying something is a myth means it's 100% unequivocally false.
So in this context, saying something is false because of some as of yet very very unlikely scenario seems like misrepresentation.
That's basically what my real issue was with all this.
"Absolute proof" is also not a thing in science.
How unlikely? Do you actually know? Can you show me the odds from someone other than the 19th century eugenecist's estimation which I've already been shown that would suggest there has actually been at least been one matching set if he's right (he's not right).
Its likelier than Zeus being up there with lightning bolts and what not.
I agree there is a possibility but that doesn't make the more likely scenario a myth.
You're confusing religious mythology with something being a myth.
It's a myth that you regularly swallow spiders in your sleep. Is it a myth because they've watched lots of people at home while they sleep every night to make sure they aren't swallowing spiders? No, it's a myth because no one who has ever made that claim has been able to back it up.
https://www.burkemuseum.org/collections-and-research/biology/arachnology-and-entomology/spider-myths/myth-you-swallow-spiders
Nobody that has claimed to have found two seperate identical fingerprints has been able to back that up either. I'm pretty sure most myths are associated with the unlikeliest scenario and not the opposite like you are doing. By their very nature they are usually outlandish, religiously outlandish or old wives tales that turned out to be false.
You're basically saying "it's a myth that spiders don't crawl into our mouths as we sleep". It kind of makes the opposite sound like a regular occurrence and saying "we haven't watched every person sleep throughout history to know if it's 100% always the case" is not a valid reason to say it
Again- no one has to say that because the burden of proof is on the claimant. This is true every single time.
Where is your proof that two fingerprints can be the same?
And before it comes about, the absence of proof isn't proof. "Could ofs" and "maybe exists" don't really cut it. I hope you understand this is why appeals to ignorance don't work and you can't use the fact that we haven't gathered all data especially when all the current data point squarely point one way.
This is why labeling something as false, a myth or a fantasy needs more than just a slight possibility.
We could label physics as a myth by arguing we just haven't found the cases in which it doesn't work yet. These things have happened before and there's always a slight possibility but to bungle about saying it's a myth is a bit silly imo.
Ah, you're back to lying about what I said again. I think this conversation is over.
This is what you wrote. Is "Fingerprints aren't all unique" a provable claim? This is why your logic isn't sound, it can be applied to all of it and makes things that clearly aren't myths into myths. And practically nothing is provable beyond a doubt especially when you need all data in all of space and time as you imply.
You basically explained it to yourself with the spider example.
I know what I wrote.
I also wrote this, which I have said in reply to you twice now. I will bold the relevant parts to help you comprehend what you're reading.
And since you have decided to lie about it again, this will be my last reply to you. Go ahead and lie about me a third time if you like. Or a fourth time, I suppose, depending on how you count these last two replies.
Do you understand that your logic applies to both and is meaningless. I changed three letters and it still makes perfect sense. You can't label things as myths because edge cases might exist somewhere in the known universe.
But please, if you don't want to interact with me, I invite you to not reply.