- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,863
- Reaction score
- 143
OK, Dudes.
Try and follow me on this.
Cuz its serious. lol
OK, seriously....
The scientific method we all abide by involves replication..thousands of patients....double blindness.....prospectiveness....
my S.O. has got me watching all these detective reality shows....
where the detective/forensic pathologist reproduce real life crimes during their investigation....ONCE.
alotta the crimes have stuff discovered by crime scene investigators.....like a bullet....or a skull thats been penetrated by a bullet...
said detective/forensic pathologist recreates the crime....shooting a bullet through something then looking at said bullet through a microscope....and coming to conclusions from the ONE experiment..
or looking at pictures from a crime scene, and making incriminating conclusions from pictures....
my point/question is....
IS FORENSIC PATHOLOGY A SCIENCE? OR IS IT VOODOO?
Can a forensic pathologists perform one experiment recreating a crime scene, and convict an individual from that?
Is this really done?
If so, doesnt that speak against the scientific process that we all live by, i.e. waiting for the-ability-to-replicate before making conclusions? Excluding bias before making conclusions?
How can that be achieved by a forensic pathologist firing a bullet into a water can, inspecting the bullet under a microscope, and making conclusions that could send a person to the electric chair?
Or an opinion on a blood spatter?
Etc etc....
Looks like alotta subjective opinion to me.
But this stuff apparently sets legal precedence.
Scary, dontcha think?
Try and follow me on this.
Cuz its serious. lol
OK, seriously....
The scientific method we all abide by involves replication..thousands of patients....double blindness.....prospectiveness....
my S.O. has got me watching all these detective reality shows....
where the detective/forensic pathologist reproduce real life crimes during their investigation....ONCE.
alotta the crimes have stuff discovered by crime scene investigators.....like a bullet....or a skull thats been penetrated by a bullet...
said detective/forensic pathologist recreates the crime....shooting a bullet through something then looking at said bullet through a microscope....and coming to conclusions from the ONE experiment..
or looking at pictures from a crime scene, and making incriminating conclusions from pictures....
my point/question is....
IS FORENSIC PATHOLOGY A SCIENCE? OR IS IT VOODOO?
Can a forensic pathologists perform one experiment recreating a crime scene, and convict an individual from that?
Is this really done?
If so, doesnt that speak against the scientific process that we all live by, i.e. waiting for the-ability-to-replicate before making conclusions? Excluding bias before making conclusions?
How can that be achieved by a forensic pathologist firing a bullet into a water can, inspecting the bullet under a microscope, and making conclusions that could send a person to the electric chair?
Or an opinion on a blood spatter?
Etc etc....
Looks like alotta subjective opinion to me.
But this stuff apparently sets legal precedence.
Scary, dontcha think?