The courts are full of cases which due to a "lack of evidence" are unsuccessfully prosecuted. More usually however, there is overwhelming evidence for a successful legal challenge but the perpetrator still goes acquitted due to technicalities, poor lawyers, costs, or a failure to interpret the evidence.
Even if this were the case, (which it is not) how does this apply to science? Science is not a courtroom.
Legal burden of proof and scientific burden of proof are two seperate concepts with different measures and processes for attaining them. Legal burden of proof for a criminal cases depends on the ability to disuade a jury or jurist (or their equivalent) that the defendent is either innocent or guilty. The burden of proof lies with the claimant and/or his/her/their legal representative to show enough evidence that the defendant is guilty, and here is the caveat, "beyond a reasonable doubt". In civil cases the amount and quality of evidence needed is less than that in a criminal case (i.e. the preponderance of evidence) for obvious reasons.
The burden of proof for science is a totally different creature. In science there is not guilty or innocent party. The burden of proof lies with the scientist (or group of scientists) confirming whether his/her/their hypothesis accurately depicts reality or not. If ANY evidence shows this hypothesis (or theory) to incorrectly depict reality than it must be modified or rejected. That is vastly different than the level of evidence needed in a criminal or civil court case.
Hope this makes sense.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
™ Version 4.2
