'...threatens to undermine the deep faith people have placed in the technology.
'"And it's not faith they should not have had to begin with," says Keith Inman, who teaches forensic science at California State University, East Bay.'
And that's clearly wrong. Someone without sufficient statistical ability and without any incentive to look for problems dreamed up a protocol and it was accepted (with "deep faith" no less) without justification.
And the academics who should be the most disinterested seekers after truth isn't willing to call this mistaken, but we're supposed to pretend no one could have seen this coming.
Most people treat science as an infallible religion. I've had people argue with me here, on HN [1] that we should not question the scientists but should accept everything they say unconditionally. [2]
[1] I am pointing this out because HN readers are presumably more intelligent than "most people" on average.
'...threatens to undermine the deep faith people have placed in the technology.
'"And it's not faith they should not have had to begin with," says Keith Inman, who teaches forensic science at California State University, East Bay.'
And that's clearly wrong. Someone without sufficient statistical ability and without any incentive to look for problems dreamed up a protocol and it was accepted (with "deep faith" no less) without justification.
And the academics who should be the most disinterested seekers after truth isn't willing to call this mistaken, but we're supposed to pretend no one could have seen this coming.