Daubert skews the contribution of forensic science because it only took into account its Galilean dimension (construction of general predictive models). However, forensic science should better be classified in the historical sciences (clinical approach to reconstruct a past event of presence or activity). We therefore need a complementary approach that integrates the necessarily “clinical” part in the resolution of forensic issues. Such an evolution involves semiotics. While recognizing that the Bayesian way of thinking is the only prescriptive available model for interpretation fitting well in the Galilean paradigm, the complexity of the reconstruction of a past-uncontrolled singular case and the robustness of available relevant data to it, invites consideration of its implementation in a semiotic line of arguments. Indeed, Bayes makes it possible to remain in a single harmonized model integrating both the clinical and Galilean dimensions, but rapidly the complexity of the modeling and its mathematization come up against more qualitative natural and legal reasoning. Two different systems of reasoning at stake are inevitably creating a “bug” that could explain the current forensic crisis and miscarriages of justice. This anomaly is reflected in the issue of transparency (misunderstandings by and between interlocutors on the nature of the expertise, if not science). Peirce offers a path to address the tension between complementary reasoning systems.