|My assertion is that science has no definitive way of quantifying things that exist on the level of ghosts or magic - that is not to say that such things don't exist or is some type of illusion.|
Yes, I got you. My assertion is that no such thing exists. That was my point. If magic or ghosts existed they would not be "supernatural", they would just be another thing science studies. Why wouldn't that be the case? What makes ghosts unquantifiable? You can supposedly perceive them with your senses, right? If one measurement device can pick them up, surely another one can. If something affects the real world then it must be objectively measurable, because it affects the real world
. If it's not measurable then it has no effect on the real world, and so it doesn't exist.
|I bet you would never be able to figure out how some people are able to do weird / supernatural things no matter how many scientists try to crack it even with very large funds to research it.|
If such people existed, perhaps you'd be right. Paranormal claims have been put to the test and they've failed every time, though.
|Too bad for some sad individuals who spent many years in prison because forensic science wasn't so clued up back when they were arrested. One could clap hands for science eventually freeing them, but one could also get really pissed off at science which wrongfully had them detained in the first place.|
Okay, you got me. This is one argument I had never heard before.
You understand the difference between science and the legal system, right? Science is just a method to obtain knowledge, it has no power to sentence people, and a particular judicial system is free to accept or reject specific classes of evidence regardless of their scientific validity. A lot of jurisdictions accept polygraph tests as evidence, even though it's been proven to be pseudoscientific nonsense plenty of times.
I don't know what if any example in particular you have in mind, but I'll grant that at some point someone was incorrectly convicted due to evidence that was scientifically valid at the time but has now been proven wrong. I think you're probably conflating unrelated things, but I'll grant it anyway. So what do you propose as a solution to this problem? What would you say the legal system should use as a standard of evidence other than science? If you were being accused of a rape, and the DNA evidence proves someone else did it, but a fortune-teller says they saw you do it, you'd say it's just to convict you of rape, right? The fortune-teller says you did it, so you must have done it. Or, maybe you think the judicial system is bullshit and crime should just not be punished, I don't know.
|scientific methods that are plain and simple not enough to ascribe guilt to the one being convicted|
I'll go a step further than you: any
piece of evidence obtained by forensic science is at least questionable in validity. One of the basic assumptions of science is that the universe is not trying to deceive the researcher. We assume that the universe just does what it does and is neither aware whether at any particular time its behavior is being tested, nor capable of changing its behavior arbitrarily. In a criminal case, the perpetrator is aware any evidence they leave will be investigated, and so they'll try as hard as they can to frustrate efforts to do so. Evidence used in a trial would mostly not pass peer review if used to write a paper, because for any given piece of evidence one can ask "how do you know this is not fabricated?"
And that is precisely why your complaint is nonsensical. Finding out the truth in a trial is messy because there are parties deliberately trying to obfuscate it, and that's not getting into the fact that not every event leaves behind detectable evidence. Regardless of what your standard of evidence is, if some people are found guilty, inevitably some innocent people will be incorrectly found guilty. But this tells you nothing of science's effectiveness to learn about the world. The universe is not trying to deceive us, and we can tell, because science works.