Interesting Tidbit 7

[Charles Parker]

Found these examples while trying to find the use of individulization in other scientific endeavors.

From Geology---a definition for identity.

Identity a. In X-ray crystallography, the distance along a crystallographic between like points in a lattice. b. In geometrical crystallography, the completion of a sequence of symmetry operations, e.g., four rotations of 90 degrees each about a tetrad.

From a Nursing Journal

While individulization of care to each patient is essential given the nature and intimacy of health care, science has demonstrated the need to decrease ... Journal of Nursing

From a book listed under Food Science.

Individualization of Flavor Preferences: Toward a Consumer-centric and Individualized Aroma Science

Hmmmm, Food Science and Aroma Science---Now there is something I can sink my teeth into.

Another Food Science Statement

The trend toward customization and individualization has, in
our view, 2 distinct driving forces: The first is the increasing awareness
of the needs of the customer at the level of the individual, in
all business transactions. The second is specific to the food.

Other than Saks and Kohler's less than complimentary article on the sad affairs of Forensic Science and their use of Individulization which by their writing has been around for over a hundred years the only other references to individulization I have found so far have been from this web site, the nursing discipline, the food industry, the business industry, and computers.

Still looking for that link to other scientific endeavors.

[Steve Skowron]

LOIS-ELLIN DATTA
Datta Analysis
Science communicators face two perennial problems: first, how can one maintain the integrity of science communications in the face of forces which may tend to degrade them, and second, how can science communications be made more useful for the individuals who are most in need of their messages?
In other words;

How do we, the latent print examiners, correctly communicate our science to " the individuals who are most in need of their messages" i.e.; the jury?

or is it just

#1, I have identified this print has having be made by the defendant.

#2, I have individualized this print as having been made by the defendant.

Which statement is, more useful for the individuals who are most in need of their messages?

[Charles Parker]

Or

#1 The latent print on exhibit 7 was identified with the right thumb of John Doe.

#2 The latent print on exhibit 7 was individulized with the right thumb of John Doe.

The meaning is the same just as Steve's is. As has been pointed out in the other thread the words should be considered in their context.

When the argument of Identificaton vs Individulization comes up there are generally 3 reasons for the change.

1. The word identification has different meaning to different disciplines and could confuse the jury in a court trial.

2. The word individulization should be used because by definition it is more accurate.

3. By using individulization we move a step closer to being a real science.

As for #1 I would like to see some case citations where multi-diciplines testified and the word identification confused the jury. As for #2 it may be more accurate but the meaning is not lost. In a scientific sitting it may be more accurate to say "Feline" than "Cat" but I am willing to say the meaning has not been lost. As for #3 does anyone actually believe that by changing one word to another we march a step more progressively towards science. We have more serious problems than the word individulization. I think it would be better for us as a community to discourage words in reports and testimony such as "Hit/No Hit" "Match/No Match" "ID/No ID" "Consistent With/Not Consistent With".

how can one maintain the integrity of science communications in the face of forces which may tend to degrade them

Interesting statement----

Force A---Wants to move to the word Individulization

Force B---Wants to retain the word Identification

Which force is the one who tends to degrade?