On Scientific Method and Forensic Procedure

[OxfordBloo]

Scientific Method and Forensic Procedure have many similarities and are essentially the application of the same process based on assumption of ignorance.

Both avoid assumption, belief, guesswork, politics and other weak methods of assessing a situation.

Scientific Method has disclosed more real and substantial defensible knowledge than any other method.

Forensic method involving assumptions of ignorance and innocence are seen as the best way to avoid false legal decisions in criminal cases.

This places the entire burden of proof on the proposer of a contention.

The fact that those basic building bricks of our legal and knowledge systems are ignored her in favour of bias, belief, gut feeling, and exercise of pore rather than rationality and fairness explains why so much ignorance still exists here.

38

[Carana]

Scientific Method and Forensic Procedure have many similarities and are essentially the application of the same process based on assumption of ignorance.

Both avoid assumption, belief, guesswork, politics and other weak methods of assessing a situation.

Scientific Method has disclosed more real and substantial defensible knowledge than any other method.

Forensic method involving assumptions of ignorance and innocence are seen as the best way to avoid false legal decisions in criminal cases.

This places the entire burden of proof on the proposer of a contention.

The fact that those basic building bricks of our legal and knowledge systems are ignored her in favour of bias, belief, gut feeling, and exercise of pore rather than rationality and fairness explains why so much ignorance still exists here.

That makes sense to me, but forensic science is constantly evolving and so-called "expert" evidence (based on inexact science) has at times led to the conviction of innocent people.

http://news.sky.com/story/1468102/fbi-admits-forensic-experts-gave-flawed-evidence

[jassi]

Where does 'expert opinion' fit into the scheme of things?  Both prosecution and defence counsel  often produce their 'experts' to give their interpretation of what the science means.

[Alice Purjorick]

Where does 'expert opinion' fit into the scheme of things?  Both prosecution and defence counsel  often produce their 'experts' to give their interpretation of what the science means.

That's why courts "do law" not science.

[Carana]

That's why courts "do law" not science.

Agreed, but trials also take into account evidence and expert opinion. If the evidence or expert opinion is flawed, then there's a potential problem.

[jassi]

Agreed, but trials also take into account evidence and expert opinion. If the evidence or expert opinion is flawed, then there's a potential problem.

I agree. Forensic science is only as good as the interpretation put on it.

[Alice Purjorick]

Agreed, but trials also take into account evidence and expert opinion. If the evidence or expert opinion is flawed, then there's a potential problem.

Our appeal system has been littered with such problems. Flawed forensic science believed by a jury.
There is a misconception that science is precise. There are two instances of common practice that I can think of where if you don't make the right guess you will wind up with the wrong answer.The right guess being based on knowledge and experience. Any one with no knowledge of the subject could be taught to do the mechanical bit in about 30 minutes.

[G-Unit]

Assuming that the scientific method avoids assumption, belief, guesswork, politics and other weak methods of assessing a situation is a fallacy. The initial choice what to study is affected by the scientist's aims, values, funding and beliefs, and they permeate the whole process thereafter.
 

[Alice Purjorick]

Assuming that the scientific method avoids assumption, belief, guesswork, politics and other weak methods of assessing a situation is a fallacy. The initial choice what to study is affected by the scientist's aims, values, funding and beliefs, and they permeate the whole process thereafter.

Dr Marietta Higgs and reflex anal dilation spring to mind.
May God preserve us from the zealots.

[Mr Gray]

That's why courts "do law" not science.

courts listen to the science...to dismiss science because it is not perfect is an ignorant view. In many cases science is very precise..dna in rape and murder cases. It depends where dna is found as to how relevant it is.

[jassi]

Science can be very precise. Its the interpretation put upon it that can be flawed.
Juries are generally made up of people with little knowledge of science who rely heavily on the opinions of persuasive experts

[Eleanor]

Dr Marietta Higgs and reflex anal dilation spring to mind.
May God preserve us from the zealots.

Yes, I remember that.  It was a horror story of false beliefs by a so called Expert.

[Mr Gray]

Science can be very precise. Its the interpretation put upon it that can be flawed.
Juries are generally made up of people with little knowledge of science who rely heavily on the opinions of persuasive experts

where would crime detection be without science..fingerprints...dna

[jassi]

where would crime detection be without science..fingerprints...dna

That's not the issue. Both can be interpreted incorrectly by humans, so while they be extremely useful in solving crimes, human enthusiasm to get a result can, on occasion, place too much reliance on them.

[Carana]

courts listen to the science...to dismiss science because it is not perfect is an ignorant view. In many cases science is very precise..dna in rape and murder cases. It depends where dna is found as to how relevant it is.

I agree with that. Sometimes DNA or other evidence is clear-cut and not in dispute. But what happens when it is?