Changes

This article just observes the obvious that scientific findings are falsifiable. Not exactly news. And talking about forensic evidence. Quite a lot of wrong convictions were based on faulty eyewitness reports, and they have been overturned by scientific evidence. If modern forensic science shows one thing, together with science of human perception and memory, it is that eyewitness reports can be highly unreliable. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:22, 15 December 2007 (EST)

This article just observes the obvious that scientific findings are falsifiable. Not exactly news. And talking about forensic evidence. Quite a lot of wrong convictions were based on faulty eyewitness reports, and they have been overturned by scientific evidence. If modern forensic science shows one thing, together with science of human perception and memory, it is that eyewitness reports can be highly unreliable. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:22, 15 December 2007 (EST)

: Did you actually read that article?  Or do you not understand falsifiability?  It didn't mention falsifiability.  It is basically arguing that your assertion is wrong.  And I reject that "quite a lot" of wrong convictions are based on faulty eyewitness reports.  No doubt there are some, particularly where there was only a single eyewitness, but I really doubt that the numbers are that high.  I realise that it's only one case, but the case of [[Azaria Chamberlain]] is an example of the opposite.  That article doesn't explain this point, but in that case the scientific evidence contradicted the accounts of the witnesses, and Lindy Chamberlain was convicted.  It was later shown that the scientific evidence was wrong, and the witnesses were correct.  Essentially, a person was wrongly convicted and sentenced to life with hard labour simply because the jurors believed the scientific evidence to be more reliable than the witnesses.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:55, 16 December 2007 (EST)

: Did you actually read that article?  Or do you not understand falsifiability?  It didn't mention falsifiability.  It is basically arguing that your assertion is wrong.  And I reject that "quite a lot" of wrong convictions are based on faulty eyewitness reports.  No doubt there are some, particularly where there was only a single eyewitness, but I really doubt that the numbers are that high.  I realise that it's only one case, but the case of [[Azaria Chamberlain]] is an example of the opposite.  That article doesn't explain this point, but in that case the scientific evidence contradicted the accounts of the witnesses, and Lindy Chamberlain was convicted.  It was later shown that the scientific evidence was wrong, and the witnesses were correct.  Essentially, a person was wrongly convicted and sentenced to life with hard labour simply because the jurors believed the scientific evidence to be more reliable than the witnesses.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:55, 16 December 2007 (EST)

===Legitimate views===

===Legitimate views===