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

IF 2.6 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY WIREs. Forensic science Pub Date : 2019-11-01 DOI:10.1002/WFS2.1349
F. Crispino, C. Roux, O. Delémont, O. Ribaux
{"title":"Is the (traditional) Galilean science paradigm well suited to forensic science?","authors":"F. Crispino, C. Roux, O. Delémont, O. Ribaux","doi":"10.1002/WFS2.1349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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. \nThis article is categorized under: Forensic Science in Action/Crime Scene Investigation > Epistemology and Method Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Communication across Science and Law Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Expert Evidence and Narrative","PeriodicalId":75325,"journal":{"name":"WIREs. Forensic science","volume":"07 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WIREs. Forensic science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/WFS2.1349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

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. This article is categorized under: Forensic Science in Action/Crime Scene Investigation > Epistemology and Method Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Communication across Science and Law Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Expert Evidence and Narrative
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
(传统的)伽利略科学范式是否适合于法医学?
十多年来,法医学在最好的情况下被批评为缺乏科学基础,在最坏的情况下被视为一种矛盾修饰法。只关注标准操作程序和质量管理可能导致法医学无法解决法官提出的认识论问题。在快速变化的时代尤其如此,包括社会的数字化转型和法医服务的分散化。因此,目前科学家及其利益相关者对法医学的理解受到质疑。有人认为,法医学的基本原则,更广泛地说,法医学哲学是可靠地应用科学来解决安全和司法问题的关键。本文分类如下:行动/犯罪现场调查中的法医学>认识论与方法法理学和监管监督>科学与法理学和监管监督之间的交流>专家证据和叙述
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The prevalence, risks, and detection of driving under the influence of nitrous oxide Chlorate‐based homemade explosives: A review The importance of digital evidence strategies The metaverse—Not a new frontier for crime “Noble cause casuistry” in forensic genetics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1