Most of us practitioners in fingerprint science are aware of the attacks on our practices and the underlying science and methodology dealing with the identification of fingerprints. (Sorry, individualization just has too many syllables and offends the poet in me.) So, here was my idea: articulate the perceived deficiencies and post them on the internet. Not just anywhere, mind you, but in a place where all the greatest minds of fingerprint science meet to confer, debate and discuss the issues affecting the discipline. I would then collect all the great ideas and compile them into a definitive defense of fingerprint science. Last week, the questions were posed in three installments accounting for over 1,000 views by forum visitors. Here are the results:
1. Who was it that first suggested this principle of biological uniqueness?
The survey says: “Many theories have been applied in explanation of this law in relation to friction ridge skin. Alfred Hale's Theory of Differential Growth is the one referred to above, by Shaheen. Both Chaos and Fractal theories can be applied to biological growth throughout nature, not just to friction ridge skin. I admit that we do need to research more fully how these various theories do explain the Law of Uniqueness, but just as I believe that the Law of Gravity holds without a supporting theory, so I believe the Law of Uniqueness holds true.” (Thank you, Mr. Fairhurst)
2. At what level was uniqueness first observed?
The survey says: ?????
3. Where was this principle/theory first published?
The survey says: ?????
4. What experimentation was conducted to verify this observation?
The survey says: ?????
5. Who first applied this principle to fingerprint ridge detail?
The survey says: ?????
6. How do we define sufficient? The implication is to an amount. How much? How do I know when I have enough to proceed?
The survey says: ?????
7. How do we define quantity? Again the implication is to an amount. How much? What value can I assign to what I observe?
The survey says: ?????
8. How do we define quality? If we are to judge the quality of a print, what are the criteria? What are the differing levels of Quality? Choice? Prime? Grade A? At the very least, there is a quality level which is unacceptable. What is it? Can it be described in words?
The survey says: ?????
So, I’ll grant partial credit for question 1. Questions 2 through 8 went unanswered so no credit for those. The fingerprint profession scores a remarkable 6.25% on their final exam. Houston, we have a problem!
Fingerprint Dogma Final Exam
-
Dogma Schmogma
Shame on you.
I've got good friends among the new examiners who criticize the old timers for subscribing to dogma, and I've got friends among the old timers who criticize the newbies for following Ashbaugh's dogma. It seems like each side throws the word "dogma" at the other in attempt to discredit the other. Shame on you for judging as "Houston, we have a problem" the silent majority who chose not to participate in your little secret survey and further whatever hidden agenda you have.
-
Dogma (formerly guest)
This effort is not intended as a pissing contest. It was initiated as a search for viable information regarding fingerprint science. There is no agenda seeking support for one side or the other. As regards those who remained silent, shame on them. "Knowledge is power, but only when it is shared." If you were afraid that your responses would be used against your position, then the information you would have provided was probably not very good to begin with. Sorry folks, no knockout punches here, seems more like a wimpering surrender.
-
Dogma (formerly Guest)
-
W C Sampson
dogma (formerly guest)
"Most of us practitioners in fingerprint science are aware of the attacks on our practices and the underlying science and methodology dealing with the identification of fingerprints".
Your preface goes far beyond a practioner. Why dont you state your real agenda and perhaps you may get some objective answers. Perhaps you are an advocate or perhaps writing a thesis for a degree.
Bill
Your preface goes far beyond a practioner. Why dont you state your real agenda and perhaps you may get some objective answers. Perhaps you are an advocate or perhaps writing a thesis for a degree.
Bill
-
Dogma (formerly Guest)
Okay, Bill,
Here is my agenda:
"So, here was my idea: articulate the perceived deficiencies and post them on the internet. Not just anywhere, mind you, but in a place where all the greatest minds of fingerprint science meet to confer, debate and discuss the issues affecting the discipline. I would then collect all the great ideas and compile them into a definitive defense of fingerprint science."
Folks, we're talking about science here. There are no sides. Only a search for the truth.
BTW, Bill, my best to Karen.
Here is my agenda:
"So, here was my idea: articulate the perceived deficiencies and post them on the internet. Not just anywhere, mind you, but in a place where all the greatest minds of fingerprint science meet to confer, debate and discuss the issues affecting the discipline. I would then collect all the great ideas and compile them into a definitive defense of fingerprint science."
Folks, we're talking about science here. There are no sides. Only a search for the truth.
BTW, Bill, my best to Karen.
-
Dogma Schmogma
Ohhh -- now there's some really great research! Post anonymously on a website discussion board open to the public where anonymous or alias responses can be made but not verified, then criticize the profession for failing to respond. Brilliant! Then hold out a 6.25% correct response rate as indicative of a problem. No wonder our critics accuse us of "junk science."
-
Fawn Liebowitz
-
Dogma (formerly Guest)
Well, from this foray into the mysteries of the fingerprint profession we have found that fingerprint examiners (at least those that dock their boats here) are:
Critics, but not critical thinkers.
Quick to identify a problem, but offer no solutions.
Dismissive of opposition, but without a champion for their cause.
Claim to be forensic scientists, but can’t explain what it is that they do.
Focus on the minutiae, but lose sight of the larger picture.
And, are setting themselves up to be the next victims of the Cole-Starrs-Stoney-Haber anti-fingerprint cabal.
Sir Francis, we had a good run of it. Your science is coming to join you. R.I.P.
PS. to Neidermeyer/Liebowitz: How about figuring out the error rate for latent fingerprint individualization??
Critics, but not critical thinkers.
Quick to identify a problem, but offer no solutions.
Dismissive of opposition, but without a champion for their cause.
Claim to be forensic scientists, but can’t explain what it is that they do.
Focus on the minutiae, but lose sight of the larger picture.
And, are setting themselves up to be the next victims of the Cole-Starrs-Stoney-Haber anti-fingerprint cabal.
Sir Francis, we had a good run of it. Your science is coming to join you. R.I.P.
PS. to Neidermeyer/Liebowitz: How about figuring out the error rate for latent fingerprint individualization??
-
Dogma Schmogma
Goodbye, foul Dogma.
Wow, “Dogma formerly known as Guest,” talk about touchy! Willing to throw out anybody's opinion who doesn't blindly participate in your anonymous "scientific research," brilliant (although pompous) researcher that you are? And you refer to Sir Francis (Galton?) as your science hero -- the notorious Francis Galton, inventor of eugenics whose first idea of fingerprints was to use them to identify superior breeding stock to perfect the human race, the same Francis Galton whose “science” was published primarily because he was the aristocratic nephew of Charles Darwin rather than because it was good science? Say, I'll bet you helped with that dandy study of five examiners in England in which they were lied to and tricked into changing their minds -- you know, the study that the "the Cole-Starrs-Stoney-Haber anti-fingerprint cabal" will use to show that 80% of fingerprint experts make their minds up based on "confirmation bias." As your true colors come out, you make me happier than ever that so few responded to your "scientific survey." Perhaps the real problems here are your approach, motives, anonymity, and lack of understanding of science. We who have responded here are not bad scientists, we just sometimes spot a charlatan and would rather needle him (and you rise to the bait so well!) than participate in some bogus “research.”
Better luck next time.
Better luck next time.
-
Dogma (formerly Guest)
To Schmogma:
1. The Sir Francis I refer to is the same one whose fingerprint appears as part of the symbol for the International Association for Identification. My hero would have been whoever responded to my questions with insight, reasoning and information that would have allowed us to deliver that knockout punch to out critics.
2. This was an informal survey and never posed as a scientific survey (see you do have difficulty understanding want is science and what is not)
3. My motives have been clearly stated many times.
4. You state you are not bad scientists. But you are lousy investigators. You think your analysis of my postings have enabled you to discover something about me. You haven’t come close.
5. I understand your concerns about anonymity. But, perhaps my unfeeling parents gave me a name as strange as yours. My best to the Schmogma family.
1. The Sir Francis I refer to is the same one whose fingerprint appears as part of the symbol for the International Association for Identification. My hero would have been whoever responded to my questions with insight, reasoning and information that would have allowed us to deliver that knockout punch to out critics.
2. This was an informal survey and never posed as a scientific survey (see you do have difficulty understanding want is science and what is not)
3. My motives have been clearly stated many times.
4. You state you are not bad scientists. But you are lousy investigators. You think your analysis of my postings have enabled you to discover something about me. You haven’t come close.
5. I understand your concerns about anonymity. But, perhaps my unfeeling parents gave me a name as strange as yours. My best to the Schmogma family.
-
Guest