Is the (traditional) Galilean science paradigm well suited to forensic science?

Abstract

For more than 10 years, forensic science has been at best, criticized for its lack of scientific foundations and at worst, presented as an oxymoron. An exclusive focus on standard operating procedures and quality management could cause forensic science to fall short of addressing the epistemological issue initiated by judges. This is particularly so in rapidly changing times, including digital transformation of society and decentralization of forensic services. As a consequence, the present understanding of forensic science by both scientists and its stakeholders is questioned. It is argued that that forensic science fundamental principles and, more broadly, forensic science philosophy are pivotal to the reliable application of science to address security and justice questions.

The debts of forensic science on the threshold of a paradigm shift

“…Hazánkban a dialektikus materializmus ideológiailag átszőtt filozófiája a kriminalisztika tudományfilozófiáját is kielégítette, majd annak eltűnésével az alapok kiüresedtek (Angyal, 2019a;Angyal, 2019b). A megfelelő elméleti alapok hiányát azonban külföldi kutatók olyan területeken is leírták, ahol korábban fel sem vetődött a dialektikus materializmus alkalmazása (Crispino et al, 2019). A probléma láthatóan nem is újkeletű, röviden abban írható le, hogy a forenzikus vizsgálatokhoz használt természettudományok törvényei és módszerei ugyan bizonyítottak, azonban azok forenzikus alkalmazására vonatkozó alapelvek bizonyítottsága vagy éppen Karl Popperi faszifikációs teória szerinti vizsgálata nem tekinthető lezárt kérdésnek (Donagan, 1964).…”

Training for communication in forensic science

“…However, few scholars have similarly addressed the problems that arise when evidence from different areas of science are combined in the context of expert testimonies in the courtroom (8), although the issues have been highlighted in recent research (19)(20)(21). Collaborations among academic scholars would ensure a "scientific, holistic, and integrated approach" to presenting forensic science in the courtroom, and avoid the silos in which forensic science is often presented (16).…”

“…The point here is not to discredit science, but rather to highlight the importance of understanding what can be discerned through science, while also recognizing limitations such as the fact that scientific findings are almost never absolute. Understanding these fundamental scientific principles and philosophies is essential to the use of science in the justice system (16) but more importantly, the people presenting scientific evidence in courtrooms are responsible for communicating these details to judges and juries in such a way that they in turn can understand the strengths and weaknesses of that information and accord it the correct weight in the decision making process. Often this information does not make its way to the forefront of courtroom discourse, or if it does, it is not clearly communicated by the scientists and therefore is poorly understood.…”

Understanding crime scene examination through an ethnographic lens

“…Given the increased prevalence of digital technologies, patterns of crime are changing and the use of traditional forensics declining. Digital technology has enhanced the capacity for individuals to commit crime, which in turn has led to different types of evidence and new challenges for crime scene examination and forensic science more generally (Crispino, Roux, Delémont, & Ribaux, 2019). It is commonly agreed that as a discipline, digital forensics follows established scientific ways of reasoning and trace identification (Casey, 2011).…”