Scientism = junk science in the courtroom
Scientism: Believing that all correct answers come from science (and, in practice, that the answers offered on behalf of whatever counts for science in given situation is correct). How does that play out in the criminal justice system? From Kelly Servick at Science: … for decades, forensic examiners have sometimes claimed in court that close but not identical ballistic markings could conclusively link evidence to a suspect—and judges and juries have trusted their expertise. Examiners have made similar statements for other forms of so-called pattern evidence, such as fingerprints, shoeprints, tire tracks, and bite marks. But such claims are ill-founded, a committee at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded in 2009. “No forensic method has been rigorously shown to Read More ›