Slashdot Mirror
The Scientific Method Versus Scientific Evidence In the Courtroom
An anonymous reader writes "A few months back, the National Research Council and the Federal Judicial Center published the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, the primary guide for federal judges in the United States trying to evaluate scientific evidence. One chapter in particular, 'How Science Works,' written by David Goodstein (Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at CalTech), has raised the issue of how judges should see science in the courtroom: should they look at science to see if it matches our idealized view of the scientific method, or should they consider the realities of science, where people advocate for their own theories far more than they question them?"
realities of science, where people advocate for their own theories far more than they question them
If you're in a courtroom, you should ALWAYS assume than anyone presenting evidence has an agenda (because they almost always do). No defense or prosecution attorney is going to put a scientist (or any other witness) on the stand who is going to do anything but advocate for their version of the case. Any judge who isn't completely new or blind already knows that well.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Good watch: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/
One thing they didn't cover, however, was the horror behind "expert" psychologists/psychiatrists and the damage they inflict.
science is about method, not about theories
If you're in a courtroom, you should ALWAYS assume than anyone presenting evidence has an agenda (because they almost always do).
I don't really agree with this. It's the lawyer's jobs to try to find a scientist somewhere who will vouch for their client or could provide evidence for the client. Now, ideally the scientist is from some other place that never heard of this case or knows anything about the case other than what he/she is an expert on. The science has been done long before hand, is sound, has been peer reviewed, etc, etc. The problem that I garnered from this article is when an "expert" is presented yet they are not peer reviewed, their science is not sound, nobody in their community takes them seriously, their degree is a hundred years old or questionable, etc, etc. Or they know a lot about the case and they have stepped forward to voluntarily promote their agenda to back their science by building credibility via high media courtroom cases.
The point is that when scientists come into a courtroom as expert witnesses (or really any expert witness), the only agenda on their mind should be to relate to the court what they have discovered in their research. Not how much more funding they'll get when this hits the papers. Not how much the defense is paying them to say that in their professional opinion the client is insane.
This is about the validity of science presented in trials, not whether or not the defense or prosecution as an agenda. I don't think that's ever been under question or they're a terrible defense/prosecution and the client should move for a mistrial. Psychological testimony has gotten so far out of hand that some states have taken extreme measures.
My work here is dung.
I find the statement "... or should they consider the realities of science, where people advocate for their own theories far more than they question them?" kind of leading and biased in its own right. To be sure researchers will advocate their theories, but that does not mean they don't question them. Someone has a chip on their shoulder.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
should they look at science to see if it matches our idealized view of the scientific method, or should they consider the realities of science
How about both? Look to see if the real process aligns closely with ideals, then base decisions on that. Did the lab follow best practices to prevent contamination? Were the statistics compiled by someone who knew what the samples were? Do all of the numbers include error calculations?
The discerning judge who considers scientific evidence will end up with a subjective opinion of whether the result meets the need for accuracy. It's the judge's job to apply such subjective opinions fairly, and here that means allowing only evidence that meets their realistic ideal.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The focus on science seems ridiculously one-sided. We should also allow for some room for alternatives in the court room. Science may be at odds with some religious beliefs and it would be unreasonable to just ignore those beliefs. This becomes a problem, for example, when God scatters around skeletons to test people's faith. A scientist would fail God's test instantly, claiming someone killed the victims.
Science in the courtroom?! Not on my watch. Someone fetch a Pastor to discern what God's will was in this case.
The word “science” used to mean knowledge of every kind obtained by any means. It has become narrowed in modern times to mean knowledge required by a procedure known as the “scientific method”. All people, including scientists have a worldview. No one is really objective nor has the ability to be so, because all people filter their input of knowledge and the output thereof through their worldview. Someone who considers the universe a cosmic probability experiment will interpret scientific knowledge a certain way. Someone who believes that the universe came into being by the action of a supreme mind, God, will interpret scientific results differently.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
Its a Hidden Markov Model problem. There is some underlying theory with a probability of being correct based on research. But the people presenting evidence in court do so through an additional set of weighting factors that govern their testimony based upon the underlying theoretical model. The testimony is what the judge and jury are able to observe. From it, they need to deduce the underlying model and probabilities.
Good luck expecting 12 people to understand this who have to have football (US) plays explained to them by TV announcers.
Have gnu, will travel.
Science without religious, political, or judicial influence is simply pure science in my opinion. Once science is used in any of those three areas it is often used to bias towards an expected outcome.
I agree science is crucial in all areas and the methods of it's use are what concern me. Science is use to help prove or debunk evidence in court rooms every day. But while it is extremely helpful in a court case, I also believe that science has killed such things as common sense, which in some instances has been know to ruin a case. Some examples where I think science destroyed a case: OJ Simpson trial, Casey Anthony trial, all the cases trying to chip away at Roe Vs. Wade, just to name a few.
While I believe good science was used in OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony cases, I believe that too much emphasis was put on scientific evidence, thus causing doubt where there should not have been any doubt.
In the matter of case chipping away at Roe Vs. Wade, the problem is how science is destroying the underlining message of Roe Vs. Wade, the science about a fetus is outweighing the basic human rights of the mother.
Just my initial thoughts.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Come on ed. How bout a case sensitive automated check?
Science is not allowed in the courtroom. Pseudo-science, such as fingerprint analysis and ballistic 'forensics,' sure, but real science won't make it past the courthouse steps in 99% of cases.
What is allowed, in lieu of actual scientific evidence, is the testimony of "experts" who got their expert certification from an open-book, online test for the low low price of $599.99.
Forensic science is anything but.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
With the following caveat - the hypothesis to be proven must be falsifiable. Continually appealing to ad hoc special pleadings, in order to preserve the central conceit of a hypothesis, is the hallmark of pseudo-science.
The dismissal of Popper in the document is frankly, abhorrent.
"If it becomes widely accepted (and to some extent it has) that falsifiable predictions are the signature of real science, then pretenders to the throne of science will make falsifiable predictions too."
They cite "Larry Laudan, Beyond Positivism and Relativism 219 (1996)" - if someone has the list of hypotheses that Lauden claims are falsifiable but not scientific, I'd be interested to see them.
It's worse than that. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard applied in criminal proceedings. In civil cases, including multi-million-dollar lawsuits, the standard is much lower. The jury's conclusion must be supported "by a preponderance of the evidence."
Let's just say it seems easy, under those circumstances, for 12 laymen to be misled by whichever expert produces a thicker and/or glossier report.
(I Am Not A Lawyer but I did have the standard of evidence explained to me by a judge when I was sitting on a jury; and thankfully there was no scientific evidence presented in my case.)
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
I think I found Laudan's list:
"Thus flat Earthers, biblical creationists, proponents of laetrile or orgone boxes, Uri Geller devotees, Bermuda Triangulators, circle squarers, Lysenkoists, charioteers of the gods, perpetuum mobile builders, Big Foot searchers, Loch Nessians, faith healers, polywater dabblers, Rosicrucians, the-world-is-about-to-enders, primal screamers, water diviners, magicians, and astrologers all turn out to be scientific on Popper's criterion - just so long as they are prepared to indicate some observation, however improbable, which (if it came to pass) would cause them to change their minds."
What Laudan fails to understand here is that falsifications must imply the truth of the hypothesis by their lack. That is to say, I could say "Creationism is falsifiable if you see a monkey with three tails, five wings, eating custard in a French cafe on January 12, 1892", but it doesn't logically follow that the *lack* of such an observation would imply creationism is true.
This guide, following Laudan's poor straw man against Popper, is only going to open the floodgates to more pseudoscience in the courtrooms.
The scientific method and the legal method don't really mesh well most times. 'Science' very rarely produces black and white results. Shades of grey are tough to get across to lay people.
But on TV, they just push a few buttons and the security camera footage clearly shows the criminal doing the deed. And there's always irrefutable forensic evidence too, like special kinds of mold that are only found in a 3 block radius of the criminal, car tire marks that can be individually matched to a specific make and model of car, and all done with detectives that love their country and spend all their time bringing murderers, rapists, and child abductors to justice, all while tossing off one-liners that make them sound smart, educated, and likeable.
And the really guilty ones ask for a lawyer. You just know when someone asks for a lawyer or invokes their fifth amendment rights they're guilty as fuck, and they'll just sit there smiling like that alone gets them a get out of jail free card. Hero Detective will just lump on ten times more evidence against them before the next commercial break, maybe bending or breaking a few rules or contacting Mystery Person X from Government Agency Y to really dig into said dirtbag.
When you consider how most people are shown how science operates within the criminal justice system, and how little there is to contradict that, why is the result at all surprising? It's not that science is hard to explain to lay people, it's that their expectations have been manipulated by fictional events and popular entertainment; And even on things like the news we see things like "Space shuttle was travelling at 17 times the speed of light before it exploded". And in cases where science runs up against a popular misconception like fluorinated water, vaccinations, homeopathic remedies, etc., the media gives "equal" time to opponents of science. Look at how many media people start by asking the scientist invited to their show "Do you believe in evolution?"
When the nature of the average person's exposure to science is muddied up like this, it's no surprise people fall back to the one thing they do trust: Their own personal biases and emotions regarding the person to form their opinion regarding their credibility.
And gee, who's going to win; the guy in a suit and tie, balding, and still looks like he's in the marines, wearing some wire-rimmed glasses and with 20 years "on the force", or the 27 year old with a clip-on, who talks with an unsure voice and uses words you don't understand, and crumbles under cross-examination by a lawyer who's every question ends with "Are you sure?" and "and remember, you're under oath."
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
For every expert opinion there is an equal and opposite expert opinion.
One of the absolute worst instances of nonsense, expert testimony came from the county coroner in the Casey Anthony case. The coroner ruled death by homicide. When questioned as to why she thought is had to be a homicide the coroner actually stated under oath that it was a homicide because the body was dumped. That is from a supposedly educated professional. No cause of death could be determined yet we have this from an expert. Could it ever just be that a child drowned as the parent was asleep and fearing social criticism and in the doom of despair tried to hide a body? People who lose a loved one can do very odd things at times.
Ask a physicist about what was there before the Big Bang, and you're almost certain to get a personal slant in his or her answer. Ask a medical researcher about the Germ Theory of Disease, and you can pretty much take what he or she says to the bank. The difference between the two is a little thing called a "scientific consensus". If the consensus is strong (say, 90% from the relevant field), then the likelihood of personal bias/agenda/conspiracy/whatever is driving the answer is vanishingly small (although still a nonzero number).
The paid experts people are mentioning in this thread are often expressing opinions that have little to do with scientific consensus (e.g. handwriting experts expressing an opinion on a particular piece of handwriting).
If you think geezers are malleable, I got some news for you, son. It's the young who are malleable, the old are set in our ways. Hell, my dad won't even use a cell phone or a computer. "I did without those things for eighty years and I don't need 'em now."
And prosecutors don't like welfare moms. Prosecutors don't want ANYBODY poor in the jury, especially if it's a drug case (and most criminal cases are drug cases).
Blue collar males? I see you've never seen the inside of a working class bar. Nearly every one smokes pot and hates the government.
Free Martian Whores!
Ask a physicist about what was there before the Big Bang, and you're almost certain to get a personal slant in his or her answer. Ask a medical researcher about the Germ Theory of Disease, and you can pretty much take what he or she says to the bank. The difference between the two is a little thing called a "scientific consensus". If the consensus is strong (say, 90% from the relevant field), then the likelihood of personal bias/agenda/conspiracy/whatever is driving the answer is vanishingly small (although still a nonzero number).
The psycholist and Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman makes mincemeat of that statement in his latest book, "Thinking, fast and slow". He calls it availability cascades, where the consensus view becomes the norm without having to be anywhere close to fact, and the scientists who do try to practice the scientific method get the silent treatment (or worse, become labelled deniers etc).
In short, "consensus" has nothing to do with science. It has a lot to do with psychology.
it's in my head
I think you're conflating different ideas together. Or perhaps you'd like to demonstrate how a scientific consensus can "become the norm without having to be anywhere close to fact". There's a myth put out by people who don't have any evidence to back them up, that "they are hiding it from you". You see it's not that the person trying to convince you that their insane theories are right is, in fact, insane. No, everyone secretly agrees with him, but everyone is too afraid of what "they" will do.
Most often we see this line of argument used by intelligent design advocates and the climate change denial machine. However, real scientists who don't accept the consensus on climate change (like Lindzen) are still able to publish regularly despite their contrarian positions (Lindzen still thinks the science linking smoking and cancer isn't settled). The problem is there just aren't that many people who can keep publishing new material when it gets proven wrong over and over again. The people who get labelled as deniers get labelled deniers because at some point it becomes obvious that they can not change their minds. Often in climate science this is because their jobs depend on denying the evidence. For many of the pundits they are literally paid by the Heartland Institute to deny climate change, and their public appearance fees depend on presenting a pre-determined view. They in too deep and no longer have the option to change their position.
In short, thinking that "consensus" has nothing to with science is foolishness. The scientific consensus is the giant on whose shoulder every scientist perches. Without consensus, every scientist would have to work from first principles and we'd never progress any further than what could be discovered in one lifetime.
Fanatically anti-fanatical