Empiricism and Evidence

Scientific evidence, whether in litigation or administration, has been privileged for a long time. In other words, even though the scientist was not a witness to the events at issue in a trail, the scientist's testimony is admissible. The scientist's testimony tends to be given great weight; in other words, it often seems more believable than the contrary testimony of a lay witness.

Scientific evidence has these unique privileges because we've assumed that the scientific method produces Truth. The scientific method, in turn, presumes the validity of empiricism.

But can empiricism be empirically verified? One cannot help but wonder after reading this piece in The New Yorker describing the "decline effect." The decline effect is the observation that the results of valid empirical studies often cannot be replicated. More recent attempts to replicate the results of earlier studies that have been long-standing stalwarts of scientific and popular consciousness have been failures.

The article describes some plausible reasons to account for some of the decline effect but these reasons can't account for it completely. Ultimately, author Jonah Lehrer astutely concludes that: 

The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.

Human beliefs, even the most "factual," do not exist apart from faith.

I would appreciate hearing from anyone on the extent to which the decline effect has been used in litigation or administrative proceedings.