You already mentioned corruption and biases. I would add incompetence to this set of potential problems. What if the forensic expert is incompetent? Many methods in forensic psychology (such as SVA) are not easy to understand for a psychological layperson. Therefore, your question "Who watches the watchmen?" is certainly valid.
Agree - or if the scientist also takes the lead from the prosecution. On historical cases it’s fairly easy to see which direction their priorities have veered towards from other cases through the decades. The whole system is bent.
An interesting technique, but for criminal investigation nothing beats examining the information you have, asking questions of witnesses, suspects, victims, and comparing the results to see if you can prove or disprove the allegation. I never worried about what was "true", only about where the evidence led
Hello Nick, you are generally on point on that: if possible, all available information should be taken into account. However, the situation described in this article is rather one of testimony against testimony; a particular situation in which physical evidence and witness statements are lacking. What else can you do in such a situation if not trying to make the best out of what you have?
But you are touching a quite philosophical topic by stating that you did not focus on discovering the "truth" but rather on the question "what are the facts?". That is an interesting point of view. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts.
I agree. I would only take issue with your use of "facts" rather than evidence. As most people on this thread will know, including you I expect, facts and evidence are not necessarily coterminous 😂
I think that the preferred terminology depends on individual attitudes and philosophical views. According to my view of scientific theory, the term "evidence" is problematic because it suggests that something can be proven with certainty. In police training (many years ago), for example, we were taught that "physical evidence" is supposedly safer/better than e.g. witness statements. A standard phrase was: "Physical evidence does not deceive." But experience has made me skeptical. Just two thoughts on this: First, physical evidence must always be interpreted. Just because evidence is there doesn't mean that it is relevant to the case. Secondly, there are many cases in which, for example, DNA traces are the result of contamination in the laboratory (such as the infamous Heilbronn Phantom in Germany). Does a confession prove that a person is the perpetrator? We all know that this is not the case either. What we call evidence in the legal context is not as safe as it might seem; and it does in fact even deceive us sometimes.
Therefore, I would agree with your above statement that one must always consider (and cross-check) all the information in a case. In terms of terminology, however, I do prefer neutral terms, such as data or information, to distinguish them from interpretations and conclusions
In this context, a famous quote from philosopher Bertrand Russell comes to my mind. It doesn't fit perfectly since the word "truth" appears in it (which we both seem to be sceptical of), but anyway:
"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts."
Maybe, you like it as much as I do, despite our different terminological preferences. Thanks again for your critical thoughts on the matter.
I would add that when comparing the accounts of an accuser and the accused, there are almost always points of difference which can then be investigated. On the occasions when there are not then any attempt to "scientifically" choose between accounts is bound to fail as there is no method of establishing truth telling beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal trial this must then lead to an acquittal, or in any other type of proceedings to a dismissal of the allegation.
A fair point there about 'reasonable doubt', Nick! You are absolutely right about that. Interestingly, the concept translates into the scientific vocabulary as 'statistical significance' and into the work of early statisticians as 'moral certainty'. I'd always been confused by that last phrase until I read a book this year about the early days of economic theory. But it's worth bearing in mind, I suppose, that scientists themselves never do attempt to reach absolute certainty either: they just establish an alpha level (usually 5%) to work with which will be, effectively, 'good enough'.
What about when the shoe is on the other foot and the suspect is at the mercy of corrupt cops and biased judges. Who watches the watchmen?
You already mentioned corruption and biases. I would add incompetence to this set of potential problems. What if the forensic expert is incompetent? Many methods in forensic psychology (such as SVA) are not easy to understand for a psychological layperson. Therefore, your question "Who watches the watchmen?" is certainly valid.
Agree - or if the scientist also takes the lead from the prosecution. On historical cases it’s fairly easy to see which direction their priorities have veered towards from other cases through the decades. The whole system is bent.
An interesting technique, but for criminal investigation nothing beats examining the information you have, asking questions of witnesses, suspects, victims, and comparing the results to see if you can prove or disprove the allegation. I never worried about what was "true", only about where the evidence led
Hello Nick, you are generally on point on that: if possible, all available information should be taken into account. However, the situation described in this article is rather one of testimony against testimony; a particular situation in which physical evidence and witness statements are lacking. What else can you do in such a situation if not trying to make the best out of what you have?
But you are touching a quite philosophical topic by stating that you did not focus on discovering the "truth" but rather on the question "what are the facts?". That is an interesting point of view. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts.
I agree. I would only take issue with your use of "facts" rather than evidence. As most people on this thread will know, including you I expect, facts and evidence are not necessarily coterminous 😂
I think that the preferred terminology depends on individual attitudes and philosophical views. According to my view of scientific theory, the term "evidence" is problematic because it suggests that something can be proven with certainty. In police training (many years ago), for example, we were taught that "physical evidence" is supposedly safer/better than e.g. witness statements. A standard phrase was: "Physical evidence does not deceive." But experience has made me skeptical. Just two thoughts on this: First, physical evidence must always be interpreted. Just because evidence is there doesn't mean that it is relevant to the case. Secondly, there are many cases in which, for example, DNA traces are the result of contamination in the laboratory (such as the infamous Heilbronn Phantom in Germany). Does a confession prove that a person is the perpetrator? We all know that this is not the case either. What we call evidence in the legal context is not as safe as it might seem; and it does in fact even deceive us sometimes.
Therefore, I would agree with your above statement that one must always consider (and cross-check) all the information in a case. In terms of terminology, however, I do prefer neutral terms, such as data or information, to distinguish them from interpretations and conclusions
In this context, a famous quote from philosopher Bertrand Russell comes to my mind. It doesn't fit perfectly since the word "truth" appears in it (which we both seem to be sceptical of), but anyway:
"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts."
Maybe, you like it as much as I do, despite our different terminological preferences. Thanks again for your critical thoughts on the matter.
I think we are in full agreement here. As always, nuanced debate suffers from being squeezed into this short form.
Thank you too for your considered and considerate responses
I would add that when comparing the accounts of an accuser and the accused, there are almost always points of difference which can then be investigated. On the occasions when there are not then any attempt to "scientifically" choose between accounts is bound to fail as there is no method of establishing truth telling beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal trial this must then lead to an acquittal, or in any other type of proceedings to a dismissal of the allegation.
A fair point there about 'reasonable doubt', Nick! You are absolutely right about that. Interestingly, the concept translates into the scientific vocabulary as 'statistical significance' and into the work of early statisticians as 'moral certainty'. I'd always been confused by that last phrase until I read a book this year about the early days of economic theory. But it's worth bearing in mind, I suppose, that scientists themselves never do attempt to reach absolute certainty either: they just establish an alpha level (usually 5%) to work with which will be, effectively, 'good enough'.
Fascinating article ‼️🥰
Thank you! I'm pleased you liked it. I'll let our guest author, Arjen, know.