It’s called the scientific method.

Unfortunately, the people passing judgment (judges, lawyers, juries) are generally not scientists, and therefore are equally likely to believe the guy with the paedo-dowser as the next guy.

Unreliable witnesses are as old as the justice system - “science” gives them a veneer of respectability now, just as it has in the past.

I see two problems, neither of which have an easy solution:

1) scientific literacy is dire, and worsening. Education helps, but when anti-science sentiment runs rife in popular culture and media, as it does now, education is met with resistance. I have been reduced to a gibbering wreck trying to explain to otherwise intelligent people that science isn’t “just an opinion”, and that astrology and astronomy aren’t “just different, equally valid opinions”.

2) the concept of the jury trial is broken. It used to be that you would be tried by your peers - people who likely knew you, had a similar background to you, could empathise and make judgments based on a clear understanding of your world. Now, you’re tried by strangers who have usually been carefully selected to be as hostile as possible without an outright admission of bias. I think there’s a happy medium somewhere between the two, as there are obviously biases in both cases.

> I have been reduced to a gibbering wreck trying to explain to otherwise intelligent people that science isn’t “just an opinion”, and that astrology and astronomy aren’t “just different, equally valid opinions”.

A short sarcastic laughter would probably have worked better. If people sense their status is lowering because they believe in this "equally valid opinions" nonsense, they will have a strong incentive to update their belief.

Of course, many will be offended, in which case I recommend turning the sarcastic laugh into a benevolent, condescending smile, with perhaps an appeal to their intelligence to soften the blow. Ideally though, you should spin it as if you were ridiculing a third party. This lets them avoid direct confrontation if they so chose, and you still get to make your point.

In any case, they cannot be taught as long as they subscribe to epistemic relativism. They first have to get rid of it, somehow. Doesn't matter if it's for the wrong reasons. Only then can they be taught how to properly change their mind.

> offended, in which case I recommend turning the sarcastic laugh into a benevolent, condescending smile

Acting condescendingly will only serve to make people think you are a condescending git.

Not if you have higher status to begin with. Not if you are their friends to begin with. And if you merely have power over them, they will notice that their beliefs will attract the contempt of people who have power over them. Of course, this probably won't work on public web forums. Of course, this won't work on your boss. Of course, this will not work well on strangers.

Then again, the best way to do it is to act as if you were ridiculing a third party. If they get offended, try not to notice, and direct your condescension at those other people you're pretending they're talking about. Give them a way to save face.

Whatever the means, the idea is to stress that epistemic relativism is not socially acceptable. Make them feel that thinking such thoughts has consequences.

The downvote suggests I said something unacceptable. Maybe it was this:

> Make them feel that thinking such thoughts has consequences.

I do not condone actually carrying out dire consequences, we've had enough dictatorships to show us how this plays out. I'm talking about manipulating people. A little. Because nothing more innocuous that I know of will do.

"peer" in that context has only ever meant people of similar standing. In the US (and many other places) where we don't have formal or legal class distinctions it pretty much just means other citizens.

I think there's probably an argument to be made about there being benefits to smaller communities, but that argument isn't supported by legal tradition surrounding the word "peer".

It seems to me that justice is in the most peril when the prosecutor is absolutely certain that the perp is guilty, but doesn't have any good evidence (which is not an unusual occurrence). So now he is faced with two possiblities, let the guy go and watch him kill/rob/rape again, or make up some bullshit that sounds good to a jury and that his public defender won't question too harshly. Something that sounds scientific even though it was never actually proven effective. Hair analysis, signature analysis, ballistic fingerprinting, eyewitness testimony, etc... There are people on death row that were convicted solely on circumstantial and unreliable evidence, and not a lot of it. Of course all this is a lot easier to accomplish if you can use the jury's inherent biases in your favor. Like you're trying to convict a 6"4' black man with tattoos all over his body and permanent sneer. Doesn't really matter if he's guilty or not, the jury is going to want to lock him up regardless.

When science and the science community fails, your solution is to suggest that more -- indeed ALL -- people start valuing science more and putting more time and resources into it.

Is not only the jury though, I read about cases where a fireman is brought as an expert and his testimony was incorrect and if I remember right cost the accused his life.

So some rules must be created for this experts, what tools they use, what software ...

#1 is the scariest of the two in my opinion, and I think the advent of the internet has only made it easier for the "evolution is just a theory"-types to congregate and develop a siege mentality that only serves to reinforce their misconceptions.

I think the problem is going to get worse before it gets better.

Now imagine if this bad "science" actually led to people being sentenced to death: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire

I've read that story once before, and it is absolutely blood-curdling. I wondered while reading if a movie was made, since it seemed like such an incredible story, it could pick up many awards. Seems it's coming: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3263946/

> before someone invents a mind reader that will detect if you have bad thoughts like pedophilia or similar and destroys more lives.

Polygraph is pretty much that.

But what I got out of reading about these issues too, a lot of forensic science is not science and has its own community different from academic community.

You mean like lie detectors?

Worse, like we know lie detectors would work for facts, "Did you do X? Yes/No"

My scenario would involve some startup creating some software that would analyze a brain scan(or worse analyze your internet activity) then it will answer for questions like this"Does this person has potential for being a pedophile? The answer would be something vague like "Strong potential"/ "weak potential" , I chose this example because I noticed that when children are involved you get much more irrational laws and the justice is applyed much stronger with less evidence

But lie detectors don’t work

To be more accurate, they don't work up to the standard we require for legal evidence and, with some practice, can be defeated.