(May 14, 2016 at 11:38 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:(May 14, 2016 at 11:13 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Look up the definition of conspiracy theory.... that is exactly what you are describing in regards to Church History. I'm skeptical without further evidence, and find what you implying to be largely untenable and unsupported.
I would guess, that if the scientific evidence pointed to you for a crime, and yet witness testimony describes someone completely different, that you wouldn't be singing the same tune. Or would you confess based on the scientific evidence, not trusting your own memory?
What you're describing here is pseudoscience, in which people (in this case, the FBI "experts") claim to speak with the authority of a scientific methodology, but are in fact ignoring it. That's why they rely on people to say, "In my expert opinion".
Quote:I would agree, that is a majority of the cases referred to as "bad science" others may be misinterpretation of what the scientific evidence says, or the result of contamination (although this would likely result in a false negative rather than false positive).
If I had no memory of an event, and DNA (for instance) evidence provided unequivocal (meaning it was clearly, objectively not tampered with) proof that I was the culprit, then yes I would plead guilty, or at least Nolo contendre, to the crime.
And if you did remember differently as I had asked in the original question? Which are you going to go with then (your memory or science)?
