Does it? Enough labs have shown to be unreliable in handling evidence and being able to follow correct procedures. Remember back when the bite marks showed they were the murderer, or the skull shaped showed them to be a killed, or they didn't float so they must've been a witch?
In a way you're agreeing with me. You're pointing out how hard it is to find what's true, and the obvious answer to me seems - better science.
Have the DNA sent to 3 separate labs to test blindly against a control (blind tests are a huge component of the scientific method), require consensus from all 3 labs.
Modern scientific method also was the solution to "phrenology" (skull shape).
At least I assume you're not arguing all scientific evidence in court should be inadmissible?
Does it? Enough labs have shown to be unreliable in handling evidence and being able to follow correct procedures. Remember back when the bite marks showed they were the murderer, or the skull shaped showed them to be a killed, or they didn't float so they must've been a witch?