Michele wrote:When we look up words, do we use the Webster’s dictionary or a scientific dictionary?
Bill wrote:Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 2nd ed., offers the following:
One examiner explained to me many years ago, "latent print work is a lot like cooking; we follow a recipe to achieve predictable results."
Gerald Clough wrote:A friend of ours has taken up baking as a serious interest . . . .
Bill wrote:My question to Pat (just for kicks and grins) is, do you believe the dictionary defines science, or does science define Webster? As an amateur (very amateur) wordsmith, I am curious.
g. wrote:I can see a continuum where on one end some exams are so routine and automatic, you barely need a human . . .
I have no problem with 95% of our basic casework being essentially a highly technical skill . . .
But in those 5% of cases where significant understanding of how we make decisions, how we apply scientific method, how we test our hypotheses, assess risk, cost/benefit, etc. That's where I think the real science is.
David L. Grieve wrote:It is the curse of being an applied science (skill, technique or whatever) that what we call ourselves can be accepted or rejected by the gatekeeper.
David L. Grieve wrote:I received my training from Ferrier. . . .
Pat A. Wertheim wrote:And to that, Gerald seems to be saying that it is up to the judge to decide where to draw the line in a particular case, but not only can judges can scoot the line up or down, they can even move disciplines around on the scale to try and make the rose smell sweet.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests