3 ms·
In my view, it implies that DNA as evidence is entirely not useful, and as DNA doesn't change, DNA will never be useful as evidence. However, since DNA analysi
by striking 11y ago
In my view, it implies that DNA as evidence is entirely not useful, and as DNA doesn't change, DNA will never be useful as evidence.
However, since DNA analysis techniques are mutable, it is possible for DNA analysis to be useful, as long as it is used correctly.
I believe there is a difference.
- sampo 11y agoMaybe "math is fallible" would have been a better title. Not because math itself is fallible, but because they used math wrong.
- pjtr 11y agoHow about "labs are fallible"? I think the point is, while forensic "science" are still using lie detectors and other very questionable techniques that just can not work reliably, it's a bit strange to paint DNA itself as fallible. DNA can work, if the lab is competent. Lie detectors and other voodoo can not.