Dear CLPEX members,
A well respected scientist from a European country has been emailing me and bemoaning the lack of understanding of science and the absence of a scientific attitude among fingerprint examiners on both sides of the Atlantic. His emails have not had to do with a single case, a single idea, or just one or two people. I would like to post in this forum my responses to him (sanitized to prevent attaching real names to the people or organizations involved) and I leave his emails to me to your imagination. For purposes of this exercise, the letters at the low end of the alphabet represent people to the east of the Atlantic. High letters of the alphabet represent people to the west of the Atlantic.
So, imagine the email from “A” bemoaning the lack of science in fingerprints.
My response:
Hi “A”
“B” has an idea who “C” is (a frequent commentator on this chat board) and I tend to agree with him. If we are right, the man is considered one of the "gods" of fingerprinting in (a European country), but he wouldn't recognize a scientist if he bumped into Albert Einstein at the lunch counter. The problem with the whole field of fingerprints is that the vast majority of those practicing it for the last half century have not considered it to be science. When Dave Grieve and I started (traveling outside the US), the mere word "scientist" was considered an insult of the worst order in the “Organization of Low Letters.” I believe “C” still holds that view, along with much power over the “Organization.”
There are more enlightened people working in our field now, and as the old dinosaurs retire and die, attitudes will change. The best scientist practicing in the field in (the European country) today is “D,” whose agency has unfortunately put a tight muzzle on him. You don't hear much if anything from “D,” but I pray that he stays in the field to outlast the old timers who are now over him. He and those like him in the US (V, W, X, Y, and Z) are the future of this business. With them, we will join the respected forensic sciences of DNA, chemistry, and all the rest as a true science; without their influence, the “C’s” of the world will keep fingerprints in the realm governed by the Flat Earth Society, all science and reason to the contrary.
I am sure you must have seen one like it, but my University Advisor many years ago had a plaque on his wall that read, "Illegitimi Non Carborundum." I asked him once what it meant and he said, "It is bad Latin for 'Don't let the bastards grind you down.'" I have tried to keep that in my thoughts lo these many years, and that, “A,” would be my advice for you, too.
Warm regards,
Pat
***
Another email from “A” continuing on the same idea (absence of science in fingerprinting), but with different examples
***
Dear “A”
Please do not make the mistake of thinking that the roughly (some number) members of “Organization of Progress” are all scientists. Some are; some are Flat Earthers; and a bunch of us in the middle (myself included) are recovering dogmatists (Is that a word?) struggling to make it into a new millennium. Eventually, the scientists will win. Of that I have no doubt. But in the meantime, dinosaurs do not die easily. There are struggles yet to come. Don't give up on us, but don't expect instantaneous enlightenment from all of us, either.
Pat
So, CLPEX members, what other advice would you have for “A?” Or am I off base?
________________________________________
Epic Struggle -- Science versus Dogma
-
Pat A. Wertheim
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:48 am
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
-
sorbitol
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:38 pm
- Location: Florida
WEll im lost!
Just tell those old guys to spend time with K,L, M & N at the bottom (to swim with the fish) half way between the locations of A and Z. I mean what is this rumor control in high school?
Tell him as a professional to explain to those that dont understand his science how it works and the theories behind it; the same you have to do in court. That and stop whining.
Tell him as a professional to explain to those that dont understand his science how it works and the theories behind it; the same you have to do in court. That and stop whining.
-
clpexco
- Site Admin
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 5:00 pm
Back down or be constructive
Daktari,Daktari wrote:Pat, no offence, but have you been on the sauce again?
Two weeks training doesn't make you, or anyone else, a scientist.
You need to go one of two directions on this board - back to the McKie threads, or constructive contribution. As the creator and administrator, I have tolerated borderline posts on topics that evoke emotion. But when that same rhetoric invades productive discussion, I draw the line. Back down (or out), or conform. No more warnings, so please comply.
-Kasey
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
Dear “A”
Since this is a chat board it is a great place for some to express new ideas, some old ideas, a persons conceptions, perceptions and some personal view points. It may not be the best barometer to determine what is accepted in the work place. I believe that most of the posts are actually used in the work environment but also that some of the posts are individuals conceptions and may not be what they really do, and then there are those that post issues that have been around awhile and they are just stirring the pot to see what others might think on the topic.
For those that might be considered dinosaurs by some, I am pretty sure that they do not consider themselves dinosaurs. For those referred to as dinosaurs some of them might consider those on the other side of the spectrum as Don Quixote’s who are on a crusade and fighting imaginary giants that happen to be windmills. It is true however that these Dino’s and Don’s have a different perspective of the definition of and exactly what science is. Some believe that scientists are those with high level degrees and then there are those that believe scientist are persons who advance the body of knowledge by experimentation and research (my personal favorite).
I do not believe there is any argument that the entire current body of knowledge that encompasses fingerprints is firmly rooted in and based on science. I think the problem between the Dino’s and Don’s can be shaken down to one aspect: is the very act of comparing friction ridge detail a scientific inquiry or a process/application within the body of knowledge like pattern interpretation, recording, AFIS, development, or preservation. The three following statements are my attempt to lay out the differing philosophies.
A. All friction ridge examinations/comparisons are a scientific inquiry.
B. All friction ridge examination/comparisons are not a scientific inquiry but are a process (technical or analytical) within the body of knowledge.
C. Some friction ridge examinations are a scientific inquiry and some are not.
I would think the Don’s would pick “A” while the Dino’s would pick “B”, and for those who would pick “C” we will just call them Dandy’s.
Fingerprints are the best and easiest form of personal identification. Chemists do not identify individuals but things which have to be associated with individuals by a different means. DNA does identify individuals (to a certain extent) but is very costly and subject to contamination. Fingerprints are employed not only as a tool in criminal investigations but performs a vital function in maintaining criminal histories. It serves two masters, forensics and law enforcement. To place fingerprints it in the same box as chemistry and biology is in my opinion wrong but accreditation organizations, defense lawyers and scientist believe that it must be or else it is not credible. Because fingerprints are a integral part of law enforcement that may be our Achilles heel because the level of education required in law enforcement has never been advanced degrees.
In conclusion I have heard the Don’s state that friction ridge comparison must be based upon science. I have yet to hear or read a compelling argument as to why must the very act of comparing friction ridges be a scientific inquiry. Do the courts require it? I do not think so. Is it to get us on equal footing with the chemists and the biologist? If that is the case then it is kind of like dying this black swan white because all of the other swans are white.
Respectfully Charles “Dino” Parker
PS—Did you know the first papers that Albert Einstein got published never were peer reviewed. He used his association with a publisher to get them printed without being peer reviewed.
Since this is a chat board it is a great place for some to express new ideas, some old ideas, a persons conceptions, perceptions and some personal view points. It may not be the best barometer to determine what is accepted in the work place. I believe that most of the posts are actually used in the work environment but also that some of the posts are individuals conceptions and may not be what they really do, and then there are those that post issues that have been around awhile and they are just stirring the pot to see what others might think on the topic.
For those that might be considered dinosaurs by some, I am pretty sure that they do not consider themselves dinosaurs. For those referred to as dinosaurs some of them might consider those on the other side of the spectrum as Don Quixote’s who are on a crusade and fighting imaginary giants that happen to be windmills. It is true however that these Dino’s and Don’s have a different perspective of the definition of and exactly what science is. Some believe that scientists are those with high level degrees and then there are those that believe scientist are persons who advance the body of knowledge by experimentation and research (my personal favorite).
I do not believe there is any argument that the entire current body of knowledge that encompasses fingerprints is firmly rooted in and based on science. I think the problem between the Dino’s and Don’s can be shaken down to one aspect: is the very act of comparing friction ridge detail a scientific inquiry or a process/application within the body of knowledge like pattern interpretation, recording, AFIS, development, or preservation. The three following statements are my attempt to lay out the differing philosophies.
A. All friction ridge examinations/comparisons are a scientific inquiry.
B. All friction ridge examination/comparisons are not a scientific inquiry but are a process (technical or analytical) within the body of knowledge.
C. Some friction ridge examinations are a scientific inquiry and some are not.
I would think the Don’s would pick “A” while the Dino’s would pick “B”, and for those who would pick “C” we will just call them Dandy’s.
Fingerprints are the best and easiest form of personal identification. Chemists do not identify individuals but things which have to be associated with individuals by a different means. DNA does identify individuals (to a certain extent) but is very costly and subject to contamination. Fingerprints are employed not only as a tool in criminal investigations but performs a vital function in maintaining criminal histories. It serves two masters, forensics and law enforcement. To place fingerprints it in the same box as chemistry and biology is in my opinion wrong but accreditation organizations, defense lawyers and scientist believe that it must be or else it is not credible. Because fingerprints are a integral part of law enforcement that may be our Achilles heel because the level of education required in law enforcement has never been advanced degrees.
In conclusion I have heard the Don’s state that friction ridge comparison must be based upon science. I have yet to hear or read a compelling argument as to why must the very act of comparing friction ridges be a scientific inquiry. Do the courts require it? I do not think so. Is it to get us on equal footing with the chemists and the biologist? If that is the case then it is kind of like dying this black swan white because all of the other swans are white.
Respectfully Charles “Dino” Parker
PS—Did you know the first papers that Albert Einstein got published never were peer reviewed. He used his association with a publisher to get them printed without being peer reviewed.
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX
-
Pat A. Wertheim
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:48 am
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Hi Charles
Reading your post, I can't help but think maybe part of the problem is defining the line between "science" and "technical skill." It is not a black and white issue and the devil may be in agreeing on which shade of gray distinguishes between the two. In the Daubert hearing in the Byron Mitchell case (1999, first Daubert challenge to fingerprint identification), the prosecutor suggested to those of us in Philadelphia for the hearing that we could easily win by taking the position that fingerprint identification is admissible under Kumho Tire. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a trained and experienced technician could testify to an opinion in a technical field, even though the technical field in question could not qualify as "science" under Daubert. When the prosecutor in the Mitchell case made that suggestion, those of us there to testify objected. We wanted to fight the defense motion on the grounds that fingerprint identification is, in fact, science.
Of course, we won. And in all of the Daubert motions filed against fingerprints since then, we have continued to win. The judge in Llera-Plaza initially ruled against fingerprints, at least in part, but then reversed himself and agreed that fingerprint identification is scientific. The Langill case in New Hampshire is still far from being "settled" because of expected appeals, but even in that case, the issues the judge commented on in making her decision were two: the agency's apparent failure to follow their own policy and the possibility of "confirmation bias" in the verification process. As I read it, she did not rule that fingerprint identification is unscientific.
I believe another problem lies in the definition of "science" itself. In the huge realm of science, we could brainstorm a thousand general fields of science. We might talk about exact sciences, pure sciences, theoretical sciences, applied sciences, and many more. Of course, in the general field of "applied science," we might include forensic sciences. And in the field of "forensic science," we might include fingerprint identification.
I agree with you there is a component of "technical process" in fingerprint work. That's what makes it "applied." And there are underlying scientific principles, which also make it "science." I do not think any of your propositions A, B, or C sum it up exactly. I would offer another option:
D. All friction ridge examinations/comparisons must combine some degree of technical skill with some application of scientific principles if the conclusions are to be deemed reliable.
I am not sure you could defend an identification in the absence of some level of scientific understanding. Nor do I maintain that fingerprint identification is a pure or exact science. However, I would also argue that fingerprint identification is not merely a technical field and fingerprint examiners are not simply technicians. Fingerprint identification truly is an "applied science" combining both technical skill and scientific application, each to some degree. To what degree is it technical or scientific? Ah! That is the shade of gray we are seeking!
But to say that non-fingerprint-expert scientists have no place researching or advising fingerprint examiners is totally wrong. And to denigrate their work solely on the grounds that they are not fingerprint experts is bone headed. That is my point. Scientific researchers, even those in academia who have never studied fingerprint identification per se, can still do valid research and contribute to our field, as they always have. Their contributions are part of our "body of knowledge," whether we always like their results or not. To accept their conclusions when we like them and reject them when we feel threatened is decidedly NOT scientific.
And finally, Charles, you pegged me correctly as "just stirring the pot to see what others might think on the topic." Thanks for noticing. And thank you for responding.
Reading your post, I can't help but think maybe part of the problem is defining the line between "science" and "technical skill." It is not a black and white issue and the devil may be in agreeing on which shade of gray distinguishes between the two. In the Daubert hearing in the Byron Mitchell case (1999, first Daubert challenge to fingerprint identification), the prosecutor suggested to those of us in Philadelphia for the hearing that we could easily win by taking the position that fingerprint identification is admissible under Kumho Tire. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a trained and experienced technician could testify to an opinion in a technical field, even though the technical field in question could not qualify as "science" under Daubert. When the prosecutor in the Mitchell case made that suggestion, those of us there to testify objected. We wanted to fight the defense motion on the grounds that fingerprint identification is, in fact, science.
Of course, we won. And in all of the Daubert motions filed against fingerprints since then, we have continued to win. The judge in Llera-Plaza initially ruled against fingerprints, at least in part, but then reversed himself and agreed that fingerprint identification is scientific. The Langill case in New Hampshire is still far from being "settled" because of expected appeals, but even in that case, the issues the judge commented on in making her decision were two: the agency's apparent failure to follow their own policy and the possibility of "confirmation bias" in the verification process. As I read it, she did not rule that fingerprint identification is unscientific.
I believe another problem lies in the definition of "science" itself. In the huge realm of science, we could brainstorm a thousand general fields of science. We might talk about exact sciences, pure sciences, theoretical sciences, applied sciences, and many more. Of course, in the general field of "applied science," we might include forensic sciences. And in the field of "forensic science," we might include fingerprint identification.
I agree with you there is a component of "technical process" in fingerprint work. That's what makes it "applied." And there are underlying scientific principles, which also make it "science." I do not think any of your propositions A, B, or C sum it up exactly. I would offer another option:
D. All friction ridge examinations/comparisons must combine some degree of technical skill with some application of scientific principles if the conclusions are to be deemed reliable.
I am not sure you could defend an identification in the absence of some level of scientific understanding. Nor do I maintain that fingerprint identification is a pure or exact science. However, I would also argue that fingerprint identification is not merely a technical field and fingerprint examiners are not simply technicians. Fingerprint identification truly is an "applied science" combining both technical skill and scientific application, each to some degree. To what degree is it technical or scientific? Ah! That is the shade of gray we are seeking!
But to say that non-fingerprint-expert scientists have no place researching or advising fingerprint examiners is totally wrong. And to denigrate their work solely on the grounds that they are not fingerprint experts is bone headed. That is my point. Scientific researchers, even those in academia who have never studied fingerprint identification per se, can still do valid research and contribute to our field, as they always have. Their contributions are part of our "body of knowledge," whether we always like their results or not. To accept their conclusions when we like them and reject them when we feel threatened is decidedly NOT scientific.
And finally, Charles, you pegged me correctly as "just stirring the pot to see what others might think on the topic." Thanks for noticing. And thank you for responding.
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
Hi Pat
I hope you are doing fine. I want to think you for the reply and yes I know you like to stir the pot on occasion. I would like to address some of the issues and clarify my position. I am going to start at the bottom as that one is the easiest for me to deal with.
Issue 1: Research conducted by non-discipline academia/scientist.
I have no problem with good scientific research being conducted by those not in a particular discipline. They do have a place in advising on research they have conducted. But like anything human we have good reasoning and bad reasoning. In science there is good research and some not so good. Yes we need to look at research directed to this discipline but that does not mean it should be accepted on blind faith. Rejecting research is not reasonable and accepting it on faith is not reasonable. So what should we do?
Research should be scrutinized as to its content. Is it premises sound? Was the research pertinent? Can it be reproduced (not all can)? The reference and citations should be checked? Are they relevant to the research and the conclusion? There is a whole list of questions involved in the review of the research. When I see a research paper and the majority of the citations or references are from the same author, the first thing that comes to my mind is “Why is that”? There may be a good reason and there may not.
I especially encourage research where fingerprint people are involved such as what John is doing in Indiana, Glenn in Minnesota, Professor Champod in France, and Dave Charlton in England.
Researchers should know that what they produce is subject to scrutiny and they should be able to defend their work against those critics of their work.
According to Karl Popper (1972) no piece of research can be held to be definitive. All results are transitional and approximate.
Issue 2: Defending identification with scientific understanding?The Latent Print Examiner of today surely needs to have some grasp of scientific understanding. Especially Biology, Physiology, Chemistry, Computers, and a good dose of Mathematics and now Cognitive Science. But it should not be limited with those. An understanding of other scientific disciplines other than the natural (pure) sciences.
There is a word that is called “SCIENTISM” that is in most dictionaries. The definition is: “The theory that investigational methods used in the natural sciences should be applied in all fields of inquiry”. To me that is a scary concept as I believe there are many different investigational methods that are used and applied in other scientific endeavors. I do not believe in a one and single scientific approach to all inquiries. But if you look close you can see signs of Scientism by statements saying “science requires it” or “science demands it”. Is it that science really demands this or requires that or is it “people” that say it does. I believe science is not static but fluid in its approach to solving problems and explaining phenomena. I do believe in the Science of Fingerprints. The sum of its parts equals body of knowledge equals science.
The Latent Print Examiner of today needs to have a good grasp of what science is and what it can and cannot do. But just like definitions, and opinions everyone has a different concept of what exactly science is.
Issue 3: The definition of science?The definition of science is difficult. Scientist and philosophers do not always agree on the definition. I have adopted Robert B. Fischer’s definition of science which he describes in his book “Science, Man, and Society”. In that book he goes over the definition of science by 12 other scientist and philosophers to arrive at his definition which states: “Science is the body of knowledge obtained by methods based upon observation”.
I am sure that some will not agree with his definition, but it is the one I use the most.
Issue 4: Technical or Scientific or Shades of Gray
As stated I believe that fingerprints as a whole is scientific. Now the question arises is the very act of comparing friction ridge detail a technical application or a scientific inquiry or perhaps a place between.
For me technical application is too light a term to describe the process and scientific inquiry is too heavy. I believe there is a term to describe the middle and that is Analysis. It is a word that has been with us a long time. The first three words in the title of Mr. Ashbaugh’s book is “Friction Ridge Analysis”. The QD discipline uses analysis quite a bit with Ink Analysis, Paper Analysis, Typewriter Analysis, Document Analysis, etc. In other disciplines we have Trajectory Analysis, Atomic Absorption Analysis, and Quantitative Analysis. SWGFAST itself is “Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Standards and Techniques”.
I believe the very human action and process of comparing of friction ridge detail is analytical in nature. It is not a technical application nor a scientific inquiry but an analytical process. It could be called “Comparative Analysis” or breaking the process into its different parts for the function of comparison. Bridges used a term in his book that was close but not quite “Comparative Examination”.
Issue 5: “D” added to “A B and C”I would change “D” just a little bit. “All friction ridge examinations/comparisons must combine the analytical process with the scientific principals and standards of the discipline if the conclusions are to be deemed reliable.”
Issue 6: Mitchell and Science/Technology
I wish I could go back to the point when they were drafting Federal Rule 702 and ask them make it “Scientific, Analytical, and Technical” instead of just testimony involving Scientific or Technical expertise. But I cannot. The ones involved in the Mitchell were only given the choice of is friction ridge comparison technical or scientific. To me kind of like holding a triangle and asked to name it a square or a circle. I believe the right choice was made. If I was forced to make a choice between technical and scientific I would have chosen scientific. That does not mean I agree with the choice only that it is just a better choice than technical.
I understand the dilemma that FR 702, Daubert, and Kumo have set forth to make a choice between two possible answers. I can understand in a Daubert hearing selecting the scientific, but as far as discussions, training, etc. I am not in the courtroom and can use the terms that I believe describe the process in the best manner.
Issue 7: Llera-Plaza decision and science.
You have far more experience and access to the players in the Daubert motions that I. I only have what I have read. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the Judge in Llera-Plaza did not come back and say fingerprint identification was scientific but stated that he still believed it was more technical (The Detail March 18, 2002 and The Detail March 25, 2002). He changed his decision on allowing the opinion of the expert to be offered and not his view that friction ridge comparison is not scientific.
Conclusion:
I believe the body of knowledge called fingerprints is based upon science. Research from outside the discipline should be welcomed and tested. The action involved in the actual comparison of friction ridge detail is Analytical in nature and not a Technical application or a Scientific Inquiry.
I realize that what I believe has little impact and is not generally accepted in the discipline today. But who knows, maybe in 25 years somebody will read it and adopt it into mainstream. I can dream can’t I.
Pat, may you live long and prosper, continue to express your beliefs and are allowed to do so and last but not least you will always have a friend in Texas.
I hope you are doing fine. I want to think you for the reply and yes I know you like to stir the pot on occasion. I would like to address some of the issues and clarify my position. I am going to start at the bottom as that one is the easiest for me to deal with.
Issue 1: Research conducted by non-discipline academia/scientist.
I have no problem with good scientific research being conducted by those not in a particular discipline. They do have a place in advising on research they have conducted. But like anything human we have good reasoning and bad reasoning. In science there is good research and some not so good. Yes we need to look at research directed to this discipline but that does not mean it should be accepted on blind faith. Rejecting research is not reasonable and accepting it on faith is not reasonable. So what should we do?
Research should be scrutinized as to its content. Is it premises sound? Was the research pertinent? Can it be reproduced (not all can)? The reference and citations should be checked? Are they relevant to the research and the conclusion? There is a whole list of questions involved in the review of the research. When I see a research paper and the majority of the citations or references are from the same author, the first thing that comes to my mind is “Why is that”? There may be a good reason and there may not.
I especially encourage research where fingerprint people are involved such as what John is doing in Indiana, Glenn in Minnesota, Professor Champod in France, and Dave Charlton in England.
Researchers should know that what they produce is subject to scrutiny and they should be able to defend their work against those critics of their work.
According to Karl Popper (1972) no piece of research can be held to be definitive. All results are transitional and approximate.
Issue 2: Defending identification with scientific understanding?The Latent Print Examiner of today surely needs to have some grasp of scientific understanding. Especially Biology, Physiology, Chemistry, Computers, and a good dose of Mathematics and now Cognitive Science. But it should not be limited with those. An understanding of other scientific disciplines other than the natural (pure) sciences.
There is a word that is called “SCIENTISM” that is in most dictionaries. The definition is: “The theory that investigational methods used in the natural sciences should be applied in all fields of inquiry”. To me that is a scary concept as I believe there are many different investigational methods that are used and applied in other scientific endeavors. I do not believe in a one and single scientific approach to all inquiries. But if you look close you can see signs of Scientism by statements saying “science requires it” or “science demands it”. Is it that science really demands this or requires that or is it “people” that say it does. I believe science is not static but fluid in its approach to solving problems and explaining phenomena. I do believe in the Science of Fingerprints. The sum of its parts equals body of knowledge equals science.
The Latent Print Examiner of today needs to have a good grasp of what science is and what it can and cannot do. But just like definitions, and opinions everyone has a different concept of what exactly science is.
Issue 3: The definition of science?The definition of science is difficult. Scientist and philosophers do not always agree on the definition. I have adopted Robert B. Fischer’s definition of science which he describes in his book “Science, Man, and Society”. In that book he goes over the definition of science by 12 other scientist and philosophers to arrive at his definition which states: “Science is the body of knowledge obtained by methods based upon observation”.
I am sure that some will not agree with his definition, but it is the one I use the most.
Issue 4: Technical or Scientific or Shades of Gray
As stated I believe that fingerprints as a whole is scientific. Now the question arises is the very act of comparing friction ridge detail a technical application or a scientific inquiry or perhaps a place between.
For me technical application is too light a term to describe the process and scientific inquiry is too heavy. I believe there is a term to describe the middle and that is Analysis. It is a word that has been with us a long time. The first three words in the title of Mr. Ashbaugh’s book is “Friction Ridge Analysis”. The QD discipline uses analysis quite a bit with Ink Analysis, Paper Analysis, Typewriter Analysis, Document Analysis, etc. In other disciplines we have Trajectory Analysis, Atomic Absorption Analysis, and Quantitative Analysis. SWGFAST itself is “Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Standards and Techniques”.
I believe the very human action and process of comparing of friction ridge detail is analytical in nature. It is not a technical application nor a scientific inquiry but an analytical process. It could be called “Comparative Analysis” or breaking the process into its different parts for the function of comparison. Bridges used a term in his book that was close but not quite “Comparative Examination”.
Issue 5: “D” added to “A B and C”I would change “D” just a little bit. “All friction ridge examinations/comparisons must combine the analytical process with the scientific principals and standards of the discipline if the conclusions are to be deemed reliable.”
Issue 6: Mitchell and Science/Technology
I wish I could go back to the point when they were drafting Federal Rule 702 and ask them make it “Scientific, Analytical, and Technical” instead of just testimony involving Scientific or Technical expertise. But I cannot. The ones involved in the Mitchell were only given the choice of is friction ridge comparison technical or scientific. To me kind of like holding a triangle and asked to name it a square or a circle. I believe the right choice was made. If I was forced to make a choice between technical and scientific I would have chosen scientific. That does not mean I agree with the choice only that it is just a better choice than technical.
I understand the dilemma that FR 702, Daubert, and Kumo have set forth to make a choice between two possible answers. I can understand in a Daubert hearing selecting the scientific, but as far as discussions, training, etc. I am not in the courtroom and can use the terms that I believe describe the process in the best manner.
Issue 7: Llera-Plaza decision and science.
You have far more experience and access to the players in the Daubert motions that I. I only have what I have read. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the Judge in Llera-Plaza did not come back and say fingerprint identification was scientific but stated that he still believed it was more technical (The Detail March 18, 2002 and The Detail March 25, 2002). He changed his decision on allowing the opinion of the expert to be offered and not his view that friction ridge comparison is not scientific.
Conclusion:
I believe the body of knowledge called fingerprints is based upon science. Research from outside the discipline should be welcomed and tested. The action involved in the actual comparison of friction ridge detail is Analytical in nature and not a Technical application or a Scientific Inquiry.
I realize that what I believe has little impact and is not generally accepted in the discipline today. But who knows, maybe in 25 years somebody will read it and adopt it into mainstream. I can dream can’t I.
Pat, may you live long and prosper, continue to express your beliefs and are allowed to do so and last but not least you will always have a friend in Texas.
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX
-
charlton97
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:51 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Science
Charles, here here!!
Some within this forum I feel fail to understand the concept of scientific endeavour and resort to trashing our work? It is interesting that people who have no idea about how research methodology is designed say things that are so inaccurate. If you say X weighs 45 pounds you can be
wrong, but if you say X weighs 5 feet 4 inches, then you are not even
wrong... It is what Gilbert Ryle calls a Category Mistake. This applies to
Daktari's statement that 'What further diminishes Dror’s work is his
propensity to have it reviewed primarily by well-known McKie supporters.".
It might be a good opportunity to explain to such commentators how scientific peer review works.
Arie Zeelenburg has not ever reviewed our work, nor do we have any control who reviews the articles that we submit to academic bodies and journals, indeed, we do not even know who the reviewers were on
any of our articles. What Daktari has misunderstood is that we gave a few people a draft of our articles, prior to submission, to get comments and feedback.
One of them was (only in one article) Arie Zeelenberg. I do not even think Dr Dror was aware of the link Mr Zeelenburg had with the McKie case at the time the paper was sent to him to offer comment.
When we submit any paper for publication, we always acknowledge anyone who gave comments to us. Daktari confuses/does not understand any of this process, and talks about this process as if Arie reviewed our paper, or did part of the research, or had involvement in its design, execution, analysis, interpretation, etc.
All he, and others, did was read the paper and give some comments for us to consider.
But maybe it is not that Daktari does not understand, it could be that he,
and many others, do not want to understand; they do not seek
understanding; they have agendas (be it McKie, anti-McKie, or dogmas to
'protect' the infallibility of fingerprint experts, the way things are
done, etc).
I thank you for your kind words of encouragement. As a fingerprint expert it is difficult for me to conduct such meaningful research in the full glare of my peers. It is for sure making me enemies. It is for sure in some cases making me unpopular.
I was once accused of sitting on the fence in the McKie case and that I was more interested in preserving the status quo than in the truth. I confess that may have been true. It is the English way. But I work with a mentor (Dr Dror) who occassionally makes light fun of me for my English constraint. He has and continues to encourage me to stand up for what I believe and to state what may be unpallatable to some. If you like I have had a little US 'attitude' injected into my veins. I am sure you chaps across the Pond will not be offended by that comment. In short, I will never sit on the fence where my research is concerned. It is just too important and fundamentaly central to what we do as examiners.
My short answer to Daktari is that he should engage in some basic classes in research methodology (it was mandatory for me to study to degree level research methods as a pre-cursor to my PhD research) so that he is better able to understand the concept of research methods and to understand the concept of peer review. then he will realsise that his comments are not only off base, but in fact flying in the face of all accepted academic protocol.
If there were more people like you Charles then the future of fingerprint science is in safe hands.
As for science, I like this quote:
Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent, common sense rounded out and minutely articulated.
George Santayana (1863-1952) U. S. philosopher and writer. The Life of Reason.
Some within this forum I feel fail to understand the concept of scientific endeavour and resort to trashing our work? It is interesting that people who have no idea about how research methodology is designed say things that are so inaccurate. If you say X weighs 45 pounds you can be
wrong, but if you say X weighs 5 feet 4 inches, then you are not even
wrong... It is what Gilbert Ryle calls a Category Mistake. This applies to
Daktari's statement that 'What further diminishes Dror’s work is his
propensity to have it reviewed primarily by well-known McKie supporters.".
It might be a good opportunity to explain to such commentators how scientific peer review works.
Arie Zeelenburg has not ever reviewed our work, nor do we have any control who reviews the articles that we submit to academic bodies and journals, indeed, we do not even know who the reviewers were on
any of our articles. What Daktari has misunderstood is that we gave a few people a draft of our articles, prior to submission, to get comments and feedback.
One of them was (only in one article) Arie Zeelenberg. I do not even think Dr Dror was aware of the link Mr Zeelenburg had with the McKie case at the time the paper was sent to him to offer comment.
When we submit any paper for publication, we always acknowledge anyone who gave comments to us. Daktari confuses/does not understand any of this process, and talks about this process as if Arie reviewed our paper, or did part of the research, or had involvement in its design, execution, analysis, interpretation, etc.
All he, and others, did was read the paper and give some comments for us to consider.
But maybe it is not that Daktari does not understand, it could be that he,
and many others, do not want to understand; they do not seek
understanding; they have agendas (be it McKie, anti-McKie, or dogmas to
'protect' the infallibility of fingerprint experts, the way things are
done, etc).
I thank you for your kind words of encouragement. As a fingerprint expert it is difficult for me to conduct such meaningful research in the full glare of my peers. It is for sure making me enemies. It is for sure in some cases making me unpopular.
I was once accused of sitting on the fence in the McKie case and that I was more interested in preserving the status quo than in the truth. I confess that may have been true. It is the English way. But I work with a mentor (Dr Dror) who occassionally makes light fun of me for my English constraint. He has and continues to encourage me to stand up for what I believe and to state what may be unpallatable to some. If you like I have had a little US 'attitude' injected into my veins. I am sure you chaps across the Pond will not be offended by that comment. In short, I will never sit on the fence where my research is concerned. It is just too important and fundamentaly central to what we do as examiners.
My short answer to Daktari is that he should engage in some basic classes in research methodology (it was mandatory for me to study to degree level research methods as a pre-cursor to my PhD research) so that he is better able to understand the concept of research methods and to understand the concept of peer review. then he will realsise that his comments are not only off base, but in fact flying in the face of all accepted academic protocol.
If there were more people like you Charles then the future of fingerprint science is in safe hands.
As for science, I like this quote:
Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent, common sense rounded out and minutely articulated.
George Santayana (1863-1952) U. S. philosopher and writer. The Life of Reason.
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
Mr. Charlton I really do not pay much attention to what Daktari says. They are in a different mindset.
However I recently came across an article in Natural Science by Maciej Henneberg titled "Peer Review: the Holy Office of Modern Science". It goes over some of the very points you made. Perhaps Daktari might read it. I thought it was very good and thought provoking.
I have been accused of trying to reinvent the wheel. My response has been I am not trying to reinvent it I am only trying to replace the wooden one with a steel belted radial.
I have been told that if it ain't broke don't fix it. My response is that I never said it was broke and the only thing I am trying to do is scrape some of the barnacles off her hull.
I encourage you and Dr. Dror's research. I am looking forward to some more. I might not agree with each and every premises but it then falls to me to prove why I do not like it.
As Albert Einstein said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
I think that says a lot about fingerprints as well.
Take care,
However I recently came across an article in Natural Science by Maciej Henneberg titled "Peer Review: the Holy Office of Modern Science". It goes over some of the very points you made. Perhaps Daktari might read it. I thought it was very good and thought provoking.
I have been accused of trying to reinvent the wheel. My response has been I am not trying to reinvent it I am only trying to replace the wooden one with a steel belted radial.
I have been told that if it ain't broke don't fix it. My response is that I never said it was broke and the only thing I am trying to do is scrape some of the barnacles off her hull.
I encourage you and Dr. Dror's research. I am looking forward to some more. I might not agree with each and every premises but it then falls to me to prove why I do not like it.
As Albert Einstein said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
I think that says a lot about fingerprints as well.
Take care,
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX
-
Daktari
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:50 am
- Location: Glasgow
-
charlton97
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:51 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Communication
Daktari, you are assuming some conspiracy here that does not exist. Of course I know/knew of Mr zeelenburg's involvement in the McKie case. But you are assuming much of busy academics and professionals like Dr Dror and myself that we spend every waking hour in each others houses and workplaces plotting and conspiring. To my knowledge Dr Dror met Mr Zeelenburg at an international conference. I was not there. Dr Dror sends a manuscript for comment to Mr Zeelenburg. Now of course when I found this out I pointed out the McKie connection to Dr Dror. But since the manuscript was sent to Mr zeelenburg for observations, not for review, it was hardly an issues with either of us.
Now, to really turn it on it's head, the real conspiracy would be for us to have left off Mr zeelenburg from the acknowledgements, denied having sought comment from him, denied my knowledge of this occurance and hide away from the gaze of public attention. We have been open and transparent in where and with whom we have sought comment. If you would state for all on this forum who you are Daktari then I could claim to have consulted with you too on this research, which I am pretty sure I have, eh, Daktari????
Now, to really turn it on it's head, the real conspiracy would be for us to have left off Mr zeelenburg from the acknowledgements, denied having sought comment from him, denied my knowledge of this occurance and hide away from the gaze of public attention. We have been open and transparent in where and with whom we have sought comment. If you would state for all on this forum who you are Daktari then I could claim to have consulted with you too on this research, which I am pretty sure I have, eh, Daktari????