|
|
Non-forensic evidence - a logical fallacy?In a court of law legal evidence is presented. Some of this may be testimony, some documentary, and some physical. Of the physical evidence part may be forensic, that is obtained by the application of science. The other part of the physical evidence, and the testimony and documentary evidence, is non-forensic.
Science and scientific evidence provide society's basis for knowing the world. Isn't the use of testimony, and documentary evidence, and all non-forensic evidence in a court of law a double-standard? After all, it involves non-science. In the interests of justice, shouldn't scientists seek to ban the use of non-forensic evidence and ban trials from proceeding unless forensic evidence is available that meets some defined level of rigor? If not, where is the logical fallacy? |
| asked on Wednesday, Mar 07, 2018 04:32:05 PM by Colin P | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
To be a double-standard, it would have to be applied unfairly to different groups in the same circumstance. For example, if we allowed eye-witness testimony in person 1's legal proceeding, and didn't allow it in person 2's legal proceeding, that would be a reasonable claim for a double-standard. However, what you are describing is how one obtains evidence for a scientific claim about the world vs a legal proceeding... two very different domains.
With legal proceedings, we don't have the luxury of saying "I don't know, let's withhold judgment until evidence is made available that warrants the judgement." We HAVE to make a judgement based on the best evidence we have. Therefore, courts will take anything. In the United States, courts don't claim that people are innocent; they claim that they are not guilty, or more specifically, there is reasonable doubt. |
| answered on Thursday, Mar 08, 2018 07:14:43 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |