Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

Checkmite said:
No; the scientific method is the entire process of forming a hypothesis, testing it, and then drawing a conclusion about the hypothesis from the data gathered.

What's happening in this thread is people making a lot of uneducated guesses which none of us is in a position to test even if they could rise to the level of actual hypotheses. What is happening here has nothing to do with the scientific method.
Click to expand...

And this forum's a lonely outpost of internet rationality. Imagine the investigative hi jinks going on "elsewhere".
 
MattusMaximus said:
Yup :D

I noticed that the FBI asked for the guy's photo; which is kind of different from asking people on the Internet to analyze the photo for them, isn't it?

Or maybe to you those two are the same thing.
Click to expand...

oh! my mistake. i didnt realise we were being employed by the FBI. thought we were just having a discussion amongst ourselves.

youre right. you are skeptical king. now will you go away.
 
boooeee said:
You act like people in this thread are trying to defuse bombs or physically apprehend suspects. This is a discussion forum. People are discussing. I don't think the FBI is all that worried about it.
Click to expand...

And part of discussion is receiving criticism.

Deal with it.
 
MattusMaximus said:
And part of discussion is receiving criticism.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...
Well, we've seen confirmation of the scientific method sooner than I expected. The Suspect #1 hypothesis was refuted by new data -- a photo with more signal and less noise.

Looks like your criticism missed the mark. Deal with that.
 
zeggman said:
We know these two individuals exist. We know they appear in images taken around the time of the explosions. I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might appear in other images which were also taken around the time of the explosions. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that the white-hatted individual in the photo taken after the explosion is one of the suspects. That doesn't prove that another individual who resembles the other suspect IS in fact the other suspect, but it doesn't seem outlandish to speculate that he might be.
Click to expand...

To what purpose? You're speculating about a distinction literally without a difference.
 
zeggman said:
Well, we've seen confirmation of the scientific method sooner than I expected. The Suspect #1 hypothesis was refuted by new data -- a photo with more signal and less noise.

Looks like your criticism missed the mark. Deal with that.
Click to expand...

Scientific method - okay. Perhaps you'd care to explain your test's control, independent, and dependent variables?
 
Checkmite said:
To what purpose? You're speculating about a distinction literally without a difference.
Click to expand...
Your question makes no sense.

The purpose of identifying the two individuals in additional photographs is to provide a more complete picture of their physiognomy, to aid in their identification by people who might be personally acquainted with them.

A secondary purpose is to identify individuals who might have taken such photographs, like the man with the red-brimmed hat who appears to be pointing some kind of image recording device in the direction of the carnage, right after Suspect #2 walked by his location. He may have recorded a clearer picture of Suspect #2. Maybe someone will ask him to take a closer look at what he shot. It couldn't hurt.
 
zeggman said:
Your question makes no sense.

The purpose of identifying the two individuals in additional photographs is to provide a more complete picture of their physiognomy, to aid in their identification by people who might be personally acquainted with them.
Click to expand...

Provide a more complete picture for whom? How is a distant, fuzzy picture supposed to help someone that wouldn't identify a person close up in sharp definition? Why does the person need to be seen again near the other person when there are plenty of much closer, much clearer images of exactly that? And most importantly, who exactly is benefitting from the speculation in this thread? Nobody here was there.

zeggman said:
A secondary purpose is to identify individuals who might have taken such photographs, like the man with the red-brimmed hat who appears to be pointing some kind of image recording device in the direction of the carnage, right after Suspect #2 walked by his location. He may have recorded a clearer picture of Suspect #2. Maybe someone will ask him to take a closer look at what he shot. It couldn't hurt.
Click to expand...

Who in this thread will ask him? Nobody in this thread was there; nobody knows who he is. So what is the real point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom