5 ms·
"Forensics" is pseudo science. Little, if any of the "science" is peer reviewed. And what is is not convincing to anyone who has an undergraduate experience in
by duped 3y ago
"Forensics" is pseudo science. Little, if any of the "science" is peer reviewed. And what is is not convincing to anyone who has an undergraduate experience in a chemistry, biology, or physics classroom and lab. Circumstantial evidence is a lot more convincing than physical evidence, but the TV shows convince us otherwise.
There's really no incentive for forensic science to be a science at all, at the end of the day. You're either working for cops, and paid for evidence to convict their suspect, or working for the defense, and paid to convince us the cops are wrong. There's no one paid to tell us what reality we're in.
- j16sdiz 3y agoPeer-reviewed science have less than a hundred years of history. Even today, Large scale experimental science seldom get review from outside their lab. (Because the lab literally hire every expert in that sub-field) Calling something "not science" because it is not peer reviewed is just ignorant
- FridayoLeary 3y agoThe entire edifice of modern science is based on the bedrock of every result being reproducible. In fact it is supposedly the only way any discovery becomes acceptable. The fact that it's no longer considered necessary says more about the state of the industry then it does about the reliability of the scientists.
- BugsJustFindMe 3y agoThis misses the point. Peer review is just one of many processes that can be used to ensure that good science is more likely to have happened through intentional external analysis and critique. And the idea here is that forensics is not based on good science to begin with, not that lack of peer review is what makes it not good science, but that peer review might have been able to catch the falseness before it entered mainstream judicial use.
- CryptoBanker 3y agoPeer reviewed studies have a roughly 50% replication rate… that’s not ver good either