论文信息 - Expert evidence and forensic misconceptions of the nature of exact science

Expert evidence and forensic misconceptions of the nature of exact science

Summary The mistaken phrase ‘exact science’ is explored and various misconceptions in relation to DNA evidence, which stem from the idea that science is exact, are discussed. Finally, the author maintains that whether or not forensic science is a ‘science’ is very much dependent on a state of mind. Certain attitudes which do not appear to be very scientific are discussed.

Ian W. Evett | I. Evett

[1] T. Loredo. From Laplace to Supernova SN 1987A: Bayesian Inference in Astrophysics , 1990 .

[2] James O. Berger,et al. Ockham's Razor and Bayesian Analysis , 1992 .

[3] John Skilling,et al. Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods , 1989 .

[4] James O. Berger,et al. Statistical Analysis and the Illusion of Objectivity , 1988 .

[5] Jeremy T. Wright,et al. The controlled trial and the advance of reliable knowledge , 1983 .

[6] P. L. Kirk,et al. The Ontogeny of Criminalistics , 1963 .

[7] Bernard Robertson,et al. Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom , 1995 .

[8] Ian W. Evett,et al. On meaningful questions: a two-trace transfer problem , 1987 .

[9] David Lindley,et al. A problem in forensic science , 1977 .

[10] H. Jeffreys,et al. Theory of probability , 1896 .

[11] L. Wolpert,et al. The Unnatural Nature of Science , 1993, The Lancet.

[12] K. Popper,et al. Conjectures and refutations;: The growth of scientific knowledge , 1972 .