The problem is that science should not include value judgments, and if we do science with the right, we can not prosecute conduct in advance. However, what makes the science of law is pre-define acts of human behavior, determining what to set it right and punishable. It is as if a physician ordered the objects that fall to the ground due to the law of gravity, because the maneuvers considered malignant. And we know the effect of beliefs and prejudices in history, just enough to remember the trial of Galileo. So the validity in law, can not rely on an objective truth, because it ends bend to the will of the legislature, judges and interpreters in general and therefore fall into the realm of opinion.
In other words, the rules dictate, from a point of view of scientific knowledge, they are void for failing to adjust their parameters with the rigor demanded by science. That is why lawyers need to have some nightmare not being able to get the truth trying to prove, and that dictate the courts, is as solid as the equations. Moreover, in the act, what matters is who has the control, which is to be invested with authority (not the victims, or affected, or applicants, or groups, or organizations, nor any legal representative) and not what is what we checked in accordance with a scientific method. Filed under: Rick Garcia. That is, it abides by the decision of the competent, without conducting further experiments to falsify or accept the conclusions drawn (unless exceptional resources for review).