| Not even DNA is safe from lies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo... > Forensic "science" is definitely horseshit though. Of course it is! Any adjectivized Science shall be horse shit. There's only one Science, the one individuals can try and reproduce the findings of others. Forensic Science, also known as "Good enough for the courts' interests". EDIT: rayiner: > How are lay judges going to go and make the determination of when a seemingly legitimate "science" is legitimate enough for admissibility in court? Shouldn't they have thought of that before they created the Courts and named themselves Judges? How did that happen and no one asked themselves "but what if we're not experts in a scientific specialty and the decision requires knowing that field?" It's kind of late to ask this question now. Goes to show what a sham this circus really is, that they don't have a method to cope with a daily occurrence. |
Well, (a) that's not how it happened (judges didn't create the courts, and judges don't name themselves judges), and (b) they do have a method for dealing with matters requiring expertise.
Now, its a mechanism that is highly susceptible to resource imbalances between the litigating parties (in which respect it is hardly unique -- lots of things in the legal system are susceptible to that), and its one that has been very effectively abused in the case of forensic (particularly, e.g., fiber analysis) science by the biggest-resource litigant around, the government. But its not a question that has been ignored and not addressed.