While the US jurisprudence of the 1993 Daubert hearing requires judges to question not only the methodology behind, but also the principles governing, a body of knowledge to qualify it as scientific, can forensic science, based on Locard's and Kirk's Principles, pretend to this higher status in the courtroom? Moving away from the disputable American legal debate, this historical and philosophical study will screen the relevance of the different logical epistemologies to recognize the scientific status of forensic science. As a consequence, the authors are supporting a call for its recognition as a science of its own, defined as the science of identifying and associating traces for investigative and security purposes, based on its fundamental principles and the case assessment and interpretation process that follows with its specific and relevant mode of inference.