Scientific methodology is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they make sense; in laboratories throughout the world, researchers spend at least as much time trying to disprove a theory as they do trying to prove it. Eventually, those ideas that don’t prove false are accepted. But fingerprinting was developed by the police, not by scientists, and it has never been subjected to rigorous analysis —you cannot go to Harvard, Berkeley, or Oxford and talk to the scholar working on fingerprint research. Yet by the early twentieth century, fingerprinting had become so widely accepted in American courts that further research no longer seemed necessary, and none of any significance has been completed. The discussion of fingerprinting is only the most visible element in a much larger debate about how forensic science fits into the legal system. For years, any sophisticated attorney was certain to call upon expert witnesses to assert whatever might help his ease. And studies have shown that juries are in fact susceptible to the influence of such experts. Until recently, though, there were no guidelines for qualification; nearly anybody could be called an expert, which meant that, unlike other witnesses, the expert could present his opinion almost as if it were fact. 点击查看答案

每个人所欣赏的世界都是他自己所创造出来的。每个人都有几分是艺术家，所以对于艺术都有几分欣赏力。真正艺术家所以超过一般人的地方就在于他比较超脱，比较能跳出实用圈套，用最敏锐的眼和最童贞的心去领略事物的本来面目，所以他能看到一般人所不能看到的境界。换句话说，他比较富于创造的想象。他对于一般人好比是一个游玩艺术风景的指路者，他创造出一个世界来指给你看。 点击查看答案