Culture Naturalism Science

Corruptocrat crime labs and belief in “science”

Spread the love

From Michelle Malkin at Townhall:

As I’ve been chronicling in my newspaper columns and CRTV.com investigative reports, many state crime labs and police departments are particularly ill-equipped and inadequately trained to interpret DNA evidence, especially “touch” or “trace” DNA — minute amounts of DNA of unknown origin often transferred through incidental contact — which has resulted in monstrous miscarriages of justice against innocent people.

The aura of infallibility conferred on crime lab analysts by “CSI”-style TV shows exacerbates the problem when juries place undue weight on indeterminate DNA evidence of little to no probative value. Just last week, North Carolina’s Mark Carver, who was convicted of murdering a college student based on dubious touch DNA that was likely the result of investigators’ contamination, won a new court date for a hearing that may set him free.

Costly errors and gross misconduct will continue as long as politicized prosecutors operate with a “win at all costs” agenda and stubbornly refuse to admit their failures. Dark history seems to repeating itself at the Oklahoma City Police Department, home of the late forensic faker Joyce Gilchrist. Known as “Black Magic,” Gilchrist conjured mountains of phony DNA evidence out of whole cloth in collaboration with an out-of-control district attorney over two ruinous decades.More.

This is another reason why so many people do not accept expert opinion in science readily. And it certainly would not be wise to do so while endemic corruption continues. But expect the characters in our Tales of the Tone Deaf anthology to keep muttering about how to Fix people who don’t “believe in science.”

See also: More Tales of the Tone Deaf: How to Weed Creationism Out of Schools

and

Tales of the Tone Deaf: Doubt of science authorities as social deviance

12 Replies to “Corruptocrat crime labs and belief in “science”

  1. 1
    rvb8 says:

    Yes, and after the thorough and professional, utterly impartial Malkin, of the wonderfully rational Townhall web site, perhaps you can absorb the rants of a Mazur, or the wonderfully rational Ann Coulter.

    You know the Coulter of, “How to Talk to a Liberal(If You Must.) Heehee:)

    “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Heh:)

    “If Democrats Had Any Brains They’d be Republicans.” Hahaha:)

    Oh, she is priceless, the gift that never stops giving. Her tedious, and increasingly unhinged rants are what NEWS reads?

    If Malkin and Coulter are your intellectual standard barers, you are in a whole host of trouble.

    But please, keep sourcing them as arguments against, evolution, or any mateialist point of view; thank you for the ammunition.

    Do you know why conservatives are never comedians? It’s because they actually believe some things are above humour, like religion, or government, family, sex, or the toilet.

    They have zero ability to laugh at themselves, because they are sacred, ormade in the image of God, or whatever; thank God I can laugh at everyting humanity holds dear; especially God and his crazy poorly esigned creation.:)

    Be happy, I am:)

  2. 2
    News says:

    rvb8, are you saying you think that the problem does not exist? If so, you are in worse trouble than me.

    Malkin documented it thoroughly, something she does better than most. But she certainly did not invent it.

    See also: Forensics files: What? We can’t trust forensic science? (RealClearScience)

    Is forensics really a science? (Slate)

    Sometimes I think rvb8 acts as living demo of what Darwinism does to one’s ability to assess evidence. = If it’s coming from the “wrong” people, it can’t be true.

    When the public “believes in” science, it very often becomes superstition, with all the evils that entails.

  3. 3
    rvb8 says:

    Of course forensics is science, and like all science forensics can interpret facts incorrectly, and innocent men and wome can be jailed.

    This of course is the unanswerable reason why th death penalty should be struck down; simply put, we can not be 100% certain of guilt in many cases where we jail people therefore don’t execute them, we may find other evidence later.

    Forensic scientists (so named), do what all scientists do, and collect evidence to support, or gainsay a theory; in their case is the person guilty of a crime.

    When a crime is committed the criminal must physically (materially?) act. When they act they disturb the natural environment, what is called the crime scene; that is physical evidence i left, and/or, the environment is altered.

    Forensic scientists evaluate this physical evidence and report their findings to the police.

    DNA evidence is immensely useful, and can often be the clinching argument as to who committed a crime. Is this evidence wholly without drawbacks, no!

    But as is common with ID, there is almost a backward yearning, a desire for simpler times, a wish to put the geni back in the bottle.

    Forensic scientists, and doctors, and biologists, physicists, geologists, and chemists etc, are the people I read and listen to when wanting to understand a phenomenon, or the natural world.

    I do not read interested ammateurs; why would any one, when you can read people who actually do research into the subject in question?

  4. 4
    tribune7 says:

    Great post. “Science” is now used as religious dogma was in in the early modern witch hunts.

    Justice can’t be a science.

    Personal integrity always trumps method when determining truth.

  5. 5
    rvb8 says:

    tribune7,

    “Personal integrity always trumps method when determining truth.”

    I’m sorry, are you suggesting a person’s character (integrity), is more important than their professional practice (method), in determining scientific truth?

    What then of the character we know of as the, ‘evil genius’. Scienists with little or no concern for humanity, who indeed disgustingly experiment on humans (Josef Mengele), to obtain ‘truth’.

    Through their vile testing they did indeed reach ‘truth’. Mengele’s experiments on twins, and freezing downed pilots in the North sea using inmates in baths of frozen water, did indeed reveal, ‘truth’.

    You see tribune7, knowledge is amoral, it is how humanity uses that knowledge which is moral, or truthful.

  6. 6
    tribune7 says:

    rvb8

    –I’m sorry, are you suggesting a person’s character (integrity), is more important than their professional practice (method), in determining scientific truth?–

    It certainly is in communicating what they claim to have discovered. Credentialed people are certainly capable of lying. In fact, groups of credentialed people are capable of conspiring to lie.

    Honest people can certainly use the scientific method to expose lies and that appears to be what happened in the article linked in the OP. Of course, that didn’t do much to help the ones subjected to lethal injection.

    Ultimately it comes down to the integrity of the one making the claim and the integrity and strength of those tasked with verifying the claims.

    When a highly desired conclusion is found to be false I would say that more often than not the falsification is covered up by the “detached” “objective” credentialed types.

    Kinsey’s research might be the most glaring and consequential example. http://www.drjudithreisman.com.....urney.html

  7. 7
    Axel says:

    Are you listening and learning from tribune7,rvb8 ? Facile digressions are no substitute for in-depth analysis.

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    scientific truth is an oxymoron

  9. 9
    rvb8 says:

    Axel,

    ‘Facile digressions…?’

    I said, ‘integrity’ in science is fine, and most scientists who follow the scientific method have it, but it is not essential in finding truth.

    Many amoral scientists have existed, using terrible methods to obtain truth; one example:

    From 1932 to 1972 (yes, 1972) the US Public Health Service conducted th Tuskegee syphilis study on African Americans in Alabama. The victims were told it was a ‘health shot’.

    A lot of useful data was gathered over this period and the mention of ‘integrity’ arose not once; until it all came out of course.

    I point out this disgusting shameful experiment to just make plain that ‘science truth’ can be arrived at without integrity, and in many cases was.

    We like to think we do science better today, and largely I think that is true. But please don’t confuse integrity with the completely unemotional collection of data.

    Mung,

    ‘scientifc truth is an oxymoron’

    Yeah, ‘Biblical Truth’ is much more reasonable.

  10. 10
    tribune7 says:

    –‘scientific truth is an oxymoron’ — Yeah, ‘Biblical Truth’ is much more reasonable.–

    How about just “truth” without an adjective?

  11. 11
    aarceng says:

    News @ 2 says
    “Sometimes I think rvb8 acts as living demo of what Darwinism does to one’s ability to assess evidence. = If it’s coming from the “wrong” people, it can’t be true.”

    I have found this in the EvC forum. Any reference to an article on ENV or DI is rejected out of hand with reference to “that creationist web site”, and sometimes to the Wedge Document.

  12. 12

    In a somewhat related sense, take a look at this article over at ENV —
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/for-culturally-illiterate-science-reporters-ancient-canaanite-dna-yields-occasion-to-slap-the-bible-around/

    My own take on it is at —

    https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2017/07/29/malpractice-in-science-reporting/

    The so called “reporting” of a scientific finding in this case is totally corrupted by these popular media outlets with an agenda of undermining/destroying a Biblical account of historical events.

Leave a Reply