For instance, the Mirror only lists one Cancer (Robert Maudsley), and four Leos. The Post has inexplicably reduced the number of Leos to two - actually leaving out a serial killer who terrified me as a child: John George Haigh, the Acid Bath Murderer.
-
Show this thread
-
He killed six people, and dissolved their bodies in acid before forging documents to access their funds. He missed the gallstones. I saw pictures of them in a book. There was something quite ... stark about them. I still remember the photo.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Haigh#%22Acid_Bath%22_murders …
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
But even the article in the Mirror: what determines the full list of 'serial killers'? There isn't a methodology, it's just a series of names chosen for convenience. A serious investigation would need a definitive method of approaching the question: "construct a list...
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likesShow this thread -
of alllllllllllll the serial killers, ever". There is no such list, of course. Do war crimes count? What countries? What timeframe? How can we be sure we found all the non-English-speaking murderers? etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
The third is mathematical. Obviously, the article says 'majority' and then lists 8 killers out of a list of 35. Not a majority. But let's *assume both the above are true* and approach the question 'are there significantly more Taurus serial killers than chance'?
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
We can model this easily. Let's take 35 people and split them entirely at random into 12 'zodiac bins' 1000 times. What's a typical figure for the highest value? Remember, we want to know if 8 is unusually high.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
We don't need to do any statistics here - you can see 8 is a very typical highest value for our randomly distributed killers, slightly higher than the mode but quite close to the center of the distribution.pic.twitter.com/WJ0UGMP8Ko
2 replies 0 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
We see all of the above in science all the time: (1) Absent, partial, or weak theory. (2) Incomplete or untrustworthy methodology or procedures. (3) Incorrect or unjustifiable calculations. Tolerance / likelihood of each changes markedly between fields!
1 reply 2 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
And scientists think differently, due to their work, their field, and their personal idiosyncrasies. My boi
@GidMK, who yells at alt-med cretins on the internet all day, would probably first think "astrology is silly". But, when I clicked this idly before, my first thought was...2 replies 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @jamesheathers


My bet is that this is paid media attention for a security company or something. Smells like that flavor of nonsense1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Dang, I was off Book promo. Close, thopic.twitter.com/ZDOJnutyBm
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @jamesheathers
@MrMMarsh used to do a lot of great stuff looking at the whole "advertising posing as science" thing, it's a truly absurd field of hilarious nonsense0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.