|
|
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."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* 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 |
|
| |