The most respected scientific organization in the country has revealed how deeply, fundamentally unscientific forensics is. A complete overhaul of our evidence analysis is desperately needed. Without it, the number of falsely convicted will only keep growing.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... src=fol_fb

This article is good.
Ive been interested In forensics for quite some time now. There's a intro to forensics class coming up on Coursera that I am looking forward too.

The article was unsettling and yet confirms the problem of confirmation bias in science that is more rampant than laymen think. Scientists are prone to it.

Think of an amateur scientist that claims he has scientifically confirmed his hypothesis when in fact all he's really doing is confirming his own biases that are often revealed by rhetoric.

ant wrote:The article was unsettling and yet confirms the problem of confirmation bias in science that is more rampant than laymen think. Scientists are prone to it.

Everyone has bias, even scientists - it's a characteristic of humanity in general, and isn't limited to one profession or another.

Did you read the article?

Yes

Interbane wrote:Yes

And all you can commented on is bias?

That wasn't all the article spoke about.

ant wrote:And all you can commented on is bias?

That wasn't all the article spoke about.

Does it matter what I choose to comment on?

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:And all you can commented on is bias?

That wasn't all the article spoke about.

Does it matter what I choose to comment on?

bias was mentioned but not identified as the prominent issue.
id like your take regarding what the most telling issue (s) the article touches on.

Slate wrote:Behind the myriad technical defects of modern forensics lie two extremely basic scientific problems. The first is a pretty clear case of cognitive bias: .... (emphasis in original)

Bias is one of two prominent issues in the article.

I perused the article. This is a classic example of the cart pushing the horse. It's not the science that is at fault here, it's the way the courts push their conclusions through with only the appearance of scientific validity. Our justice system is deeply flawed in many other ways as well. For example, any good lawyer can find an "expert witness" who will side with their narrative version of events. Again, they are only trying to appear scientific. If anything, the problem of bias is accentuated.

So, yes, forensics, as it is conducted by our courts, is deeply unscientific.

I always find the impact of pop culture interesting. The effect CSI has on people who are either part of the jury or choose a profession in forensics.