The National Academy of Sciences committee report was significant.geo wrote: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.
Did you read it? Do you dispute their findings?
.
You seem to have stopped at the court system which is only one aspect of what troubles the science of forensics.
do you disagree with the above? Why? what do you know about ballistics and handwriting analysis that refutes the above claim?. Ballistics and handwriting analysis, the committee noted, are also based on tenuous and largely untested science.
Is handwriting analysis, for example, an objective science? How is that tested for validity?
Do you think that despite forensic labs not subjecting their evidentiary tests to replication for verification purposes (as part of the scientific method) it is of no consequence?
So forensics is just a problem in the court system. Other than that, it has no other issues. Is that what you're saying?
If so, I gather you are disputing and or ignoring everything else the article introduced.