RedditBeginAgain

Is it my imagination, or is a disturbing amount of forensic science not very scientific? There's no way in real science you'd show an investigator one set dental records and one bite mark and ask if they match. That's asking for false positives.

Police lineups are flawed. Animal hair identification was completely bogus. Lie detectors are flawed. DNA is good but not as perfect as claimed. Facial recognition is sketchy. Arson investigation is patchy.

Is all forensic science really imprecise but compelling to juries because on TV it's basically magic?

That's my point. The pattern over decades is that new forensic science gets debunked even if judges and juries honor it for a while.

Is writing tech books a viable 21st Century occupation, or is it that you enjoy spreading knowledge and are willing to do it for less than a developer salary?