Trayvon Martin Shooting: Voice Experts Claim Teen's Cries, Not Zimmerman's, Can Be He

[Russian Crushin]

I'm a biology major in college and use the scientific method everyday.

If you actually used it past the 3rd grade, you'd know you use it all the time even if you dont write out each step on paper

[Hous]

Its funny that you had to google it

Voice Expert:

Ask a question: It is Zimmerman's voice

Do background research: Year's of professional expertise combined with listening to Zimmerman's and Trayvon's voices

Construct Hypothesis: This is Zimmerman's voice

Test with experiment: Plug in voices into a speech recognition software

Analyse result/Draw conclusion: Voices returned a 48% match that needed a 90 to pass

If Hypothesis is true/false: It's false

Report results: It probably is not zimmerman

TADAAAA the scientific method in all its glory

You seemed to have missed the "Think again" part of the scientific method. It's incomplete to test GZ's voice and not TM's considering the purpose is to figure out whose voice it is. The exclusion of one through scientific reasoning is not the inclusion of the other possibility. Scientist craft their research in the most error preventive fashion. There are other possibilities and you cannot reach a conclusion without actual evidence.

The biggest flaw, ironically because you reference it in your own outline, is in the background research. They only talk about GZ's voice but not TM's. They either did insufficient background research or omit it from their findings because it's not convienent to their findings.

It's incomplete because theres a 50% chance it was GZ and 50% chance its TM, if the same results show its not TM then the conclusion is erroneous. Anyone that would do this study following the scieintific method would test for TM's voice because one of the core fundamental principals of the scientific method is reliability.

[Hous]

I'm a biology major in college and use the scientific method everyday.

If you actually used it past the 3rd grade, you'd know you use it all the time even if you dont write out each step on paper

If you actually thought about what I said, you'd know I said anything about writing anything out on paper.

[Russian Crushin]

You seemed to have missed the "Think again" part of the scientific method. It's incomplete to test GZ's voice and not TM's considering the purpose is to figure out whose voice it is. The exclusion of one through scientific reasoning is not the inclusion of the other possibility. Scientist craft their research in the most error preventive fashion. There are other possibilities and you cannot reach a conclusion without actual evidence.

The biggest flaw, ironically because you reference it in your own outline, is in the background research. They only talk about GZ's voice but not TM's. They either did insufficient background research or omit it from their findings because it's not convienent to their findings.

It's incomplete because theres a 50% chance it was GZ and 50% chance its TM, if the same results show its not TM then the conclusion is erroneous. Anyone that would do this study following the scieintific method would test for TM's voice because one of the core fundamental principals of the scientific method is reliability.

You seemed to not know that you can only test 1 hypothesis in an experiment so you would simply do another experiment with a hypothesis being that its TM's voice

But that doesnt matter because this experiment was simply to test if it was zimmerman's voice.

Your logic and knowledge of the scientific method is the flawed part.

[Russian Crushin]

If you actually thought about what I said, you'd know I said anything about writing anything out on paper.

Yea but you said there was nothing scientific about yet i just laid out how he would use the scientific method to solve this "problem"

So just because he didnt list and lay it out step by step like i did means he didnt use the scientific method?

[Run]

I still say it was excessive killing that boy.

Guilty or not, Zimmerman or not, just senseless. Nothing he did warrants that AT ALL.

Killed obviously........right? He didn't fall off his damn bicycle?



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[Russian Crushin]

Dont follow the Title that TS gave to this thread

The article says "The Orlando Sentinel consulted two voice experts to try to settle the debate, and both came to the same conclusion: The cries could not have come from George Zimmerman...stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare"

So basically all they re saying is that they dont think its Zimmerman, thats it

[Hous]

You seemed to not know that you can only test 1 hypothesis in an experiment so you would simply do another experiment with a hypothesis being that its TM's voice

But that doesnt matter because this experiment was simply to test if it was zimmerman's voice.

Your logic and knowledge of the scientific method is the flawed part.

Is it reliable if you are not testing it against anything? Isn't reliability one of the tenets of the scientific method? How can something be unreliable and still be consistent with a conclusion that flows research?

Yea but you said there was nothing scientific about yet i just laid out how he would use the scientific method to solve this "problem"

So just because he didnt list and lay it out step by step like i did means he didnt use the scientific method?

Whenever you see a sentence start with "yea but" you know the person responding is having a humina humina moment and has nothing intelligent to say. Your response met my expectations, congrats.

[Russian Crushin]

Is it reliable if you are not testing it against anything? Isn't reliability one of the tenets of the scientific method? How can something be unreliable and still be consistent with a conclusion that flows research?

Listen this article is simply there to show that Zimmerman didnt do it. They are not a lawyers in court who have to prove both sides like you want. They dont have to test it against anything to show that its not him, what part of that dont you understand?

For example, if you test a suspects fingerprints at a crime scene and they dont match, do you have to test the rest of the world's population to prove that his fingerprints dont match? Before you can say that his dont match?

THink about it

Whenever you see a sentence start with "yea but" you know the person responding is having a humina humina moment and has nothing intelligent to say. Your response met my expectations, congrats.

And congrats, you respond to my use of language but you completely ignore the info that i provided. You met my expectations mr psychologist, congrats

[Hous]

Listen this article is simply there to show that Zimmerman didnt do it. They are not a lawyers in court who have to prove both sides like you want. They dont have to test it against anything to show that its not him, what part of that dont you understand?

For example, if you test a suspects fingerprints at a crime scene and they dont match, do you have to test the rest of the world's population to prove that his fingerprints dont match? Before you can say that his dont match?

THink about it

And congrats, you respond to my use of language but you completely ignore the info that i provided. You met my expectations mr psychologist, congrats

They are scientist, the scientific method requires reliability. How can you have reliability when you don't test your findings against anything. Its possible their research gave a false negative and they wouldn't know it unless they test it against TM's.

This is distinguished from the fingerprint hypo for one very apparent reason. There are only two possibilities here, there are seven billion and and counting with fingerprints. It's either TM's or GZ's voice.

Even more importantly, in the finger print hypo, if your found a suspects finger print didn't match that at the crime scene, then it relieves the suspect of suspicion. The results here have the opposite effect in that it raises suspicion. For that reason there is more at stake and a heightend demand for reliability is necessary.

Why are you dodging the question of reliability? You're a hypocrit because I do respond to your info, it's you who ignores mine.