Is Science Always Reliable? | Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts

Some philosophers, specifically in the field of epistemology, have critiqued the idea that science should be viewed as completely objective and reliable. However, are their critiques merely theoretical or could they be put into practice? In the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the U.S. Supreme Court argues that scientific testimony is in fact prone to error or even intentional falsification. Therefore, the confrontation clause must apply so that the defendant can question the methodology involved with conducting scientific research. Although these are not necessarily philosophers writing, we can definitely see parallels between the opinion written and some philosophers who were skeptical of the idea of an objective science.
#philosophy #law #science
Instagram: amygdalacomics
Donations: ko-fi.com/philosophytoons
Business Email: [e-mail]

[@mihaidanciu1]

please do more videos on law-related subjects. love ur channel!

[@grinningcheshire3358]

The problem is that what people think science means and what it actually is are two different things. Science is not the factual truth about the world. It is the method in which we use observations and data to make sense of the factual truth about the world. Nearly all scientific testing has rates of error even without accounting for mistakes. That is why scientific studies and research utilize a statistical assessment of a probability distribution (p-value,) which basically just ascertains whether the null hypothesis (that the effect or correlation doesn't occur) is below a certain significance alpha (the initially decided on limit; usually .05.) If the p-value is less than this, it is merely saying that you can have (in the case of .05 alpha) about 95% confidence that the finding is significantly different *statistically* than if there was no interaction in the research whatsoever. So basically, even then, science is not saying that something IS established, it is saying that the effect observed is pronounced enough to be reliable up to a certain percentage. And this is if everything is done absolutely right. The most important section when reading any reaearch paper or testing analysis is *the METHODS*. That is because you are able to determine from that section whether the researchers even did the study/test properly or if there are significant flaws in the methodology that make the results of the testing unreliable. In this case, the state was basically arguing that you don't really need to worry about the methods and to just accept the testing as is. "Science" would never agree with this. Even then, it doesn't touch of other possible issues like bias or intentional manipulation, as was touched upon in the video, which deserves further scrutiny. There is a reason why the defense will often want a sample of the evidence in many cases to have independent testing performed as well (which is also a central tenant of science: retesting to establish repeatability.)

[@PhilosophyToons]

Hopefully they still teach what science really is in school.

[@John-ir4id]

A bit of a tangent, but... it's interesting how conservative the legal system is when it comes to investigating and integrating scientific research that contradicts its premises - specifically the moral and ethical responsibility of individuals in society - into legal theory and practice, preferring to stand on precedent. Consider the issue of legalizing marijuana. I grew and sold marijuana as a young man when it was still very illegal on the state level. I even went to jail for it. Then, after California admitted the medicinal applications and legalized it, I went to get my record expunged on the premise that I should not have to suffer the burden of a criminal record when any adult could possess far more than I ever did without getting in any trouble whatsoever. The prosecutor in my case went so far as to argue that it didn't matter, that my conviction should stand because to change it would undermine the authority of the state. ...I won the case, but it was amazing to me to have to sit through such a ridiculous debate where her argument amounted to - science be damned, it can't interfere with our authority!

[@PhilPhysics]

Do I have to rewrite what I wrote in Live Chat?

[@PhilosophyToons]

Yeah i believe they disappear when the video finally premiers

[@PhilPhysics]

@PhilosophyToons was wondering if more law videos could be made on precedents that concerned the letter of law (the current rule/issue of the IRAC), AND concerned itself with the analysis that the letter of law (the rule) at that time of the precedent, stood, while the spirit of the law might be in question, due the philosophical nature of the rule still being under scrutiny within the philosophical community. I enjoyed this video, and found it rather simple.

[@PhilosophyToons]

@@PhilPhysics I can't think of many examples of pure philosophical scrutiny but there are definitely a lot of examples of current culture being at odds with long standing precendent. Perhaps that culture was influenced by philosophy however. I do want to do a video on Oliver Wendell Holmes and his evolving thoughts on free speech, because although it wasn't a very long timeline, he did change his mind about free speech over a couple years after having more theoretical discussions with others.

[@Ballerkid513]

@@PhilosophyToonswould love to hear about that and other potential videos on philosophy’s potential impact on the modern day

[@judithalisonlee1095]

excellent video! But I'm still suspicious of Scalia . . .