Interesting article, thanks. This is about the legal aspects of Shaken Baby Syndrome, and how Robert Roberson's was sentenced to death in Texas on the basis of now-obsolete science.
It's almost impossible for the medical profession to admit that mistakes were made, especially when the mistake takes on a life of its own. I guess the judicial system has a similar problem.
The blog post seems to indicate the problem is systemic in the criminal justice system's attempts to integrate Science into its rulings:
> Once convicted, however, defendants in cases of faulty science run up against an anti-scientific defect in the system.
> Legal principles dictate a certain deference to the trial court’s decision. ... the court system would be hopelessly bogged down ... if the losers were entitled to endless rehearings of the facts. With scientific and medical questions, however, it means a reversal of the logic by which science moves.
(note to self: "... there are
four primary facets or canons (i.e., rules or
principles that guide a field of study) that define
the scientific method. They are empiricism,
determinism, parsimony, and testability." https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/469...
It's almost impossible for the medical profession to admit that mistakes were made, especially when the mistake takes on a life of its own. I guess the judicial system has a similar problem.
I visited /u/rossant's profile, and found a blog post about his book on this subject: https://cyrille.rossant.net/sbsbook/