4 ms·

This is one of those cases where, even though the science is correct (the children didn't contain the same DNA as the mother's blood), the interpretation was wa

by derekp7 12y ago

This is one of those cases where, even though the science is correct (the children didn't contain the same DNA as the mother's blood), the interpretation was way off (that these children weren't hers), and almost ended in a travesty of justice. Have we really come that far from the days of the Salem witch trials, and the tests they used to determine if someone was guilty of witchcraft?

cheez 12y ago
The main hold the state has over the people now is taking away their children or livelihoods. It used to be death so it's kind of an improvement. Once the full effect of interference comes to light, the pendulum will swing back closer to something sensible, though one must feel for the people caught up in it in the meantime.
amirmc 12y ago
When you fully believe that a test that is "100 percent foolproof" and impartial, it's easy to convince yourself that the person in front of you must be lying. In this case the implicit assumption was something like the following: A perfect DNA match implies parentage, therefore, parentage implies a perfect DNA match. As this article shows, the latter isn't always true. I'm sure the former isn't true either, but I'm trying to describe how most people think about these things.
- DougN7 12y ago
  That's the thing that is worrisome - ever assuming our knowledge is 100% solid. When we're in a reflective mood, we say we'd never do that. But it happens all the time. I remember in sixth grade learning that stellar red shift absolutley proved the universe was not expanding, thus provin the big bang. Well, despite KNOWING, turns out it was wrong - the universe was expanding after all. In this case it didn't change the underlying meaning, but was wrong. That left me questioning science more than I should. I can say I hate hearing "now we know..."

4 ms·

This is one of those cases where, even though the science is correct (the children didn't contain the same DNA as the mother's blood), the interpretation was wa

by derekp7 12y ago

cheez 12y ago
The main hold the state has over the people now is taking away their children or livelihoods. It used to be death so it's kind of an improvement. Once the full effect of interference comes to light, the pendulum will swing back closer to something sensible, though one must feel for the people caught up in it in the meantime.
amirmc 12y ago
When you fully believe that a test that is "100 percent foolproof" and impartial, it's easy to convince yourself that the person in front of you must be lying. In this case the implicit assumption was something like the following: A perfect DNA match implies parentage, therefore, parentage implies a perfect DNA match. As this article shows, the latter isn't always true. I'm sure the former isn't true either, but I'm trying to describe how most people think about these things.
- DougN7 12y ago
  That's the thing that is worrisome - ever assuming our knowledge is 100% solid. When we're in a reflective mood, we say we'd never do that. But it happens all the time. I remember in sixth grade learning that stellar red shift absolutley proved the universe was not expanding, thus provin the big bang. Well, despite KNOWING, turns out it was wrong - the universe was expanding after all. In this case it didn't change the underlying meaning, but was wrong. That left me questioning science more than I should. I can say I hate hearing "now we know..."