What's the problem with forensic science authenticating art?

I'm writing a paper for my English class, my topic is Forensic science VS Provenance in authenticating artwork. My stance is for forensic science, but I can't seem to find reasons why forensic science is not liked as a method for art authentication. Does anyone have any information on why it's disliked? Thank you ahead of time.

I particularly remember reading a chapter in "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" where there was some piece of artwork (I believe a sculpture) that was shown to be real by science, but strangely enough, a lot of experts would look at it and immediately know that something was wrong, even if they didn't know what exactly was wrong. You may wanna try to find that book (it's common) and read that chapter. I believe it was either the first or second chapter, and a quick read. You may even be able to find an e-book.

Ultimately the work turned out to be a fake.

I think it has something to do with science not being able to detect emotion. Art is mostly about emotion, and a fake exhibit doesn't have the same emotion, or any, as an original. They can be made of the same materials, even constructed/created at the same time, but because the artist isn't the same, lacks his emotion or his style or whatever. People can tell because we are emotions all the time, where as science removes that. It's like asking a robot to tell you if James doesn't like you. The robot doesn't know, he sees James shake your hand and smile at you, but you can feel that James isn't being friendly. I dunno, that's probably a bad example, but you get the point.

That sounds about right. Also, art, sometimes lacks total logic. Paintings, drawings, and such appearing distorted and unusual. Science is all about logic, so, really, they seem like two things that should never touch.

Carbon-dating a piece of art or something like that doesn't seem like science is over-stepping its bounds, to me, but according to the book I read, there are cases where science has been wrong and professionals/experts ended up being right.

Like all things, in moderation, I suppose?