4 ms·
If you are using forensics in a trial, the validity of the "interpretation" part is key to it's use. The reliability of these interpretations has been historica
by shkkmo 5y ago
If you are using forensics in a trial, the validity of the "interpretation" part is key to it's use. The reliability of these interpretations has been historically hugely overstated.
Given this history it is absolutely reasonable to reject most forensic evidence unless there actual good science supporting the reliability of expert interpretations.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y agoThe usual example is DNA evidence. The two most obvious fallacies are actually called The Prosecutor Fallacy and The Defendant Fallacy because it's so easy for either side to mis-sell what the evidence really means. It's basically impossible for someone who isn't pretty handy with Bayes to work out the significance for themselves. The average jury member has no chance.