Here We Go Again: Objective Vs Subjective

[Charles Parker]

Les Bush Says

Another two terms that often provide meaningful discussion are the subjective and objective decision making processes involved in a fingerprint examination. My view is that we follow an objective methodology that culminates in a subjective conclusion. Once again the two terms are interdependent and our understanding of how they apply is another issue requiring general consensus.

Les I know this Objective/Subjective Topic was pounded out pretty well a year or two ago, but I do not want to go drag it back up to the front. Besides there may be some new arguments to prevail.

My view is that we follow an objective methodology that culminates in a subjective conclusion.

Could you explain from your POV that the Methodology is Objective and the Conclusion turns up Subjective.

From my POV the Analysis stage is subjective because the individual is determining what is present, is distortion present, is their sufficiency, what features represent the best of reliability and rarity?

Let us start with just the Analysis Phase then we can work on the Comparison and Evaluation phase.

I have seen the POV that the methodology is Objective and the Conclusion is Subjective on a IAI Division Website and I want to understand the reasoning behind that.

If you have the time. I know you are busy, but we may get some more to jump in on this highly volatile subjective point of view.

Gentleperson Rules. I will leave my dry West Texas humor at home. Only those who want to debate the issues in a good way should join in. 8)

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Hi Charles

I got out my trusty Webster's Dictionary and checked the words "objective" and "subjective" once again (the corners of those pages have becomed worn with use).

Without quoting verbatim, "subjective" implies a decision that takes place in a human mind. "Objective" means independent of the mind.

So, we might say that the comparison process is objective because we find a feature in the latent print, the look at the inked print to see if the feature exists there, as well. That would be an objective process, back and forth, back and forth.

Now, the determination that the feature in the latent print "matches" (please let's don't quibble over that term here) within tolerance would be a more subjective decision. As Les points out, the two parts -- subjective and objective -- are interdependent.

However, as you point out, Charles, the Analysis Phase includes a lot of subjective decisions about what you see in the latent print. I am not even sure you can separate "subjective" from "objective" in some of the finer parts of analysis, comparison, or evaluation. I think there are components of both subjective and objective in all three phases.

But the term "subjective" seems to be the sticking point. Does "science" have to be 100% objective with no component of subjectivity? If so, Newton's observation of the falling apple, which led to the theory of gravity, must be rejected because of the subjective jump that he made from the objective observation that apples fall toward the earth.

Why are we afraid of the term "subjective?" We make subjective decisions all the time in all fields of science. If latent print examination could be reduced to a fully objective science, then computers could make lights out decisions in all cases and there would be no need of latent print examiners. If the question comes up in court, as it has in the past, "Mr. Wertheim, isn't it true that your identification in this case is subjective?" my answer runs something like this, "Subjective means taking place in the human mind. The process I follow is an objective process but the final decision of identification is subjective because it takes place in my mind. So, of course my identification is based on a subjective decision. But that makes it no less reliable."

[Charles Parker]

Pat, I am glad to see you back from your trip.

After I made my original post it was suggested to me that I start with definitions and lo and behold you beat me to it.

Without quoting verbatim, “subjective” implies a decision that takes place in a human mind. “Objective” means independent of the mind.

From my POV the terms objective and subjective need to be explored a little further and in taking your lead I am going to use the dictionary.

SUBJECTIVE 1) of, affected by or produced by the mind or a particular state of mind; of or resulting from the feelings or temperament of the subject, or person thinking 2) determined by and emphasizing the ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc of the [subject] 3) Gram. Same as nominative 4) Philos. Of or having to do with the perceptions or conception of a thing by the mind as opposed to its reality independent of the mind.


OBJECTIVE 1) of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking 2) being, or regarded as being, independent of the mind; real; actual 3) determined by an emphasizing the features and characteristics of the object, or thing dealt with, rather than the thoughts, feelings, etc. of the [person].

What has been underlined is what I think best applies to the discussion at hand.

Your definitions although not incorrect I would probably state them a little different, such as:

“Subjective” implies a perception or conception that takes place in the human mind. I took out decision because I feel you can have an idea or thought without a decision but you cannot have a decision without a thought or idea (My POV). Or another definition could be Subjective-based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

With your paraphrased definition some might be confused with the concept as how can you have any idea, conception, decision, or basic thought that is independent of the mind. I hope you do not mind but I have replaced it with the following:

Objective—not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Not dependent on the mind for existence.

The concept of subjectivity/objectivity pervades science, philosophy, business, arts, humanities, religion, etc. and that is the reason I am going into it a little more than some people might think is necessary. From my POV there are subtle differences between Subjective/Objective Realities, Subjective/Objective Knowledge and Subjective/Objective Judgments. These subtle differences and the different concepts of subjectivity and objectivity I believe are the root of the discussion of this thread.

So if subjectivity is what we think and objectivity is what it is, can there be objective knowledge (knowledge is what we think so knowledge is subjective [a philosophical argument]). I happen to believe that we can have objective knowledge. For example:

I believe it is hot outside. (Subjective statement)
The weathermen from three stations state it is hot outside. (Objective statement)

Agreement in different subject’s judgments is often taken to be indicative of objectivity. Philosophers call this form of agreement “Inter-subjective Agreement” Now I am not saying this is a objective truth or reality as someone else may disagree, I am saying it is an Objective Judgment.

So how does this fit into my view of Subjectivity/Objectivity of ACE-V.

ACE-V as a model or methodology if you prefer, is generally accepted by the latent print community. It may not be scientifically proven if you go with some arguments but I think everyone can accept that is generally accepted within the discipline. In other words there is a consensus. It falls within an “Inter-Subjective Agreement”. However the very act of Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation itself is “mind or thought” dependent of the subject conducting the examination. The human mind determines the level of deposition factors, the clarity assessment, distortion aspects, sufficiency determination, determination of ridge flow, selection of ridge features, etc. One could argue that these things exist in reality and that is true but it takes the human mind to conceptualize them. No one has seen this latent before or compared it and the perception and conception of it by the single examiner are subjective (it is in their mind). Now when we go on to Peer Review (Verification) and there is agreement with the conclusion we now have some consensus and have moved from a subjective judgment to a objective judgment as it no longer just resides in the mind of one person.

The model is objective knowledge; the action of the examiner applying the model to the problem at hand is subjective judgment; agreement of the conclusion by another is objective judgment.

That is where I am at now, but like the weather in Texas it could change at any time. It is in the outer circle of my beliefs.

I think there are components of both subjective and objective in all three phases.

Which components would you say are objective or independent of the mind?

But the term "subjective" seems to be the sticking point. Does "science" have to be 100% objective with no component of subjectivity?

I agree. Science does not have to be 100% objective to be science. I think the problem lies sometimes in peoples perception of what science is and what subjectivity/objectivity is.

Why are we afraid of the term "subjective?" We make subjective decisions all the time in all fields of science

I am not sure why some are afraid of subjectivity. It is all around us every day. Perhaps they do not understand fully the concept. Recently in talking with another LPE from another agency they had testified recently and the defense had strongly questioned them about subjectivity/objectivity. They had testified that their conclusion was based upon science and therefore objective. After the trial the LPE started looking up objectivity/subjectivity and became more confused. I asked the LPE why they testified the way that they did and the response was that it the way it is written about all the time and that they read it on a IAI State Website.

I think there are a lot of very smart, well educated people in this business who have very strong backgrounds in science, statistics, some philosophy and the number of different scientific theories and philosophies that accompany that education. Then there are a lot who do not have the background in science or statistics and the concepts are difficult to understand (even for some with degrees). Do we just kick it in fourth gear and put the pedal to the metal and leave them behind? For me a tough decision and one of my red-button soap boxes.

I for one am not afraid of Subjective. I will be the first to tell you that my response is that my conclusion is judgment based upon knowledge, training, and experience. When asked is it subjective my response is "yes---it is subjective judgment" I have not been kicked out of the courtroom in 35 years.

Maybe I am doing it wrong. That is a possiblity that I have to acknowledge. But that is why I like this forum. I read what others write and if it aggreable or fits within my circle of beliefs then I adopt it. If it does not fit within my sphere of experience and knowledge then I do not. If it is in between (I do not know one way or the other) then I investigate it further. That is what happened with confirmation bias. I now have a belief system on that concept within my discipline.

Enough ranting on what I think. Tell me what you think?

[Strict Scrutiny]

"Objectivity vs. Subjectivity" is a conflict created by lawyers, not so much scientists. I tend to believe we use them together in most every comparison. One is not the antithesis of the other. The sooner we fully accept this is the time we become a more accurate science. Ferreting out subjectivity when that subjectivity can lead to inaccuracy is important in all sciences. But if we deny subjectivity in our work, we cannot truthfully examine our shortcomings as a science. Sometimes just identifying a ridge feature is subjective, but too many of us were led to believe this is a wholly objective process. Its a shame.

[Charles Parker]

Hi SS. I hope you are doing well.

By Strict Scrutiny

"Objectivity vs. Subjectivity" is a conflict created by lawyers, not so much scientists.

For the most part I agree, but there is some scientific disagreement especially when they start putting knowledge and beliefs into the discussion. Some say that nothing can truly be objective because everything is mind dependent. I am not persuaded by that argument.
I think it is interesting in all of the definitions of subjectivity/objectivity that I have read or kept notes on, most if not all never use the word experience. I think that is a key point in describing the use of either one of them.

By Strict Scrutiny

I tend to believe we use them together in most every comparison.

Which parts do you consider objective? Could you give an example?

By Strict Scrutiny

One is not the antithesis of the other.

I agree one is the right hand and one is the left. One is ying and one is yang (probably did not spell that right). I hope I did not give you the impression that I think they are anti each other.

I understand that one is in the mind and one is reality. The latent print is real and exists for anyone to see, but it is the examiner that is conducting ACE that is making mind dependent choices on what he/she is observing which goes into a decision making process.

What parts of ACE are not mind dependent or is the argument (premise) that because the latent image exists in real time that any observation of it will be the same when another person looks at it. If that is the case then I have a lightning analogy that might be interesting. 8)

[John Vanderkolk]

Objective: The relationship of an object to another object.
Subjective: The relationship of an object to the subject doing the perceiving.

The only way for a subject to know the objective relationship of two objects is to perceive them. Numerous similar subjective conclusions based on experience, understanding and judgments by self and the community lead to scientific knowing and believing the objective relationship of the objects through subjective perception. But is perfect objectivity without any subjectivity ever achieved? I do not know how.

I do know that science works. Science does not exist without the scientist. Reality and relationships within nature exist, with or without the scientists and science. Objective relationships within reality exist whether the subject or scientist understands them. The knowing and believing based on experience, understanding,and judgments within science is as objective as we can get. Can perfect objectivity exist within judgment making? Not with the scientist, or subject, doing the perceiving. Scientific judgment is part of science. Scientists strive to improve our understanding of objective reality. Science is not perfect or infallible. If scientists are fallible, how objective can science be? Not perfectly objective. Scientists strive for subjective determinations and objective reality to be the same.

[mdavis]

There have been some highly interesting posts recently. Thanks Charles, et. al. They have certainly pushed my thinking in directions where I don't often go.

Stepping back from the trees to view the forest, as someone pointed out earlier, I think the fingerprint community has been guilty of overreacting to defense challenges, I know I have. There seems to be a phobia of "admitting" that what we do is largely subjective by most all definitions. Our work is based on science but we utilize our education, training and experience (my stock answer to any defense attorney) in arriving at a decision. The court may not accept my credentials and my background, but my subjective opinion is always verified, and always open to defense "experts" to refute if they think they can. My reports are the best that I can provide and I stand by every one of them. But by claiming objectivity in our opinions, are we not opening ourselves up to attack?

I believe that most legitimate judges will recognize the inherent value of fingerprint identification and will continue to allow it as highly reliable because it is verifiable, unlike most other courtroom evidence. It is precisely because of its weight that defense seeks to undermine it when it is not in the interests of defense claims of innocence. It is because of that weight that we must continue to hone our methods and, perhaps most importantly, not cut corners on our peer review processes which would appear to be the main reason for the rare bum ident (aka ID, individualization, etc.) With the increased confidence brought about by ridgeology, poroscopy and the L3Ds, some are pushing the edge of the envelope too far and we've all gotten burned. Throw in the massive AFIS database inventory with lightning fast searchs resulting in dozens of close candidates and we have a receipe for disaster in a discipline that has prided itself for a century on its incredible accuracy. It is only recently that latent prints have come under fire due to these factors.

There is precious little objectivity in a courtroom, certainly not from the attorneys, both of whom claim to have the correct answer (one of them is wrong, if not lying for the defendant). How about eye witnesses, LE officers, claims of the victim and defendant, the jury, even the judge's opinion? We seem to be trying to strengthen a stainless steel link in a paper chain by claiming objectivity. Perhaps what we must do is renew our individual committment to strive for absolute accuracy and abandon the jousting of semantics?

[Pat A. Wertheim]

I think the fingerprint community has been guilty of overreacting to defense challenges.

In the 30-odd years I've been testifying, I have continually observed overreaction on the part of some fingerprint examiners. It seems the defense community comes up with different fad attacks every so often. Maybe one year it's fingerprint forgery, maybe the next year it's how many points, then the next year it's the subjective/objective thing, then it might become scientific/technical issue.

Let's call a hypothetical examiner C.L. (short for "Chicken Little"). C.L. would come back from court in a panic. "The defense asked me how many points it takes, and I said there's no set minimum, and he raked me over the coals on that. We need to figure out a minimum and stick with it." So I would ask, "Did the defense prevail, or did the court accept your evidence?" And C.L. would say, "Oh, we got a guilty verdict, all right. But we've got to have a better answer." "Why?" I would ask. "If you can deal with the question, why should we change the way we do things?"

The crux of the matter is that what we do is correct. We have the most reliable of all forensic sciences and the one that the others try to tack onto their names (ever heard of "DNA Fingerprinting?") So it seems to me that the answer lies not in changing the way we do things, but in understanding better what we do and explaining it calmly and patiently in court.

Attorney: "Is fingerprint identification subjective or objective?"
Answer: "Well, it's a little of both. All sciences require subjective decisions on the part of the scientist. In fingerprint identification, the process is objective, but the conclusions are, by definition, subjective. Being 'subjective' does not mean the conclusions are unreliable. My training and experience have equiped me to reach very reliable conclusions and, in the case on trial today, my conclusion is correct."

I think Mr. Davis has hit the nail on the head. Sometimes we overreact to a new attack when all we really need to do is stay calm and think it through.

[Strict Scrutiny]

For the most part I agree, but there is some scientific disagreement especially when they start putting knowledge and beliefs into the discussion. Some say that nothing can truly be objective because everything is mind dependent. I am not persuaded by that argument.

I believe elements of the fp science are objective, and some elements are subjective. Pat referred to the ridgeology model which states that the proecess is objective but the product is a decision that is subjective. I like that far better than Bob Hazen dogma from years gone by that said the whole shootin match was 100% objective, but even so I don't think the Ashbaugh model goes far enough to identify the potential for subjective elements to creep in prior to the decision to individualize. A section of a fingerprint with very clear ridge detail and features can be observed in their near pristine state, and then compared to an exemplar. I would call this objective.

However smearing and distortion can cause an examiner to take a leap and say I believe this ridge feature is true. To me this is subjective, and can cause problems at the decision to individualize if we are not careful, those problems are then compounded if the original examiner attempts to influence the verifyer. I believe we need a good clarity metric to guide us when smearing and distortion are present. We could do it. But we have to admit we need it.

[Les Bush]

Good morning from Oz

I took home yesterdays postings to prepare a POV but after reading todays very good entries I will need to do some further research and thinking. Objective method, Scientific method (ACEV) has been defined by Tuthill and Ashbaugh so I will leave that alone. My POV with that method and approach to scientific problem solving is that our decisions in A and C are formative and progressive under a hypothesis that sufficient FRD will be found, or not. We are not concluding in A and C apart from determining within rules that the observed features meet certain criteria and are factual. Based on those facts we enter into the phase of E where the separate decisions are linked sequentially and the hypothesis has been adequately tested. This becomes a subjective exercise since the MPR is dependent on both experience and confidence in reproducibility of result. A good analogy would be the process of wine tasting, it has a method ( visual, aroma, taste) each phase has defined criteria that differentiates the wine sample. The final phase is a subjective judgement with the conclusion drawing together the holistic information and experience. Wine tasting experts will be able to accurately classify and identify wines even down to a maker and a vintage. We can do better.

[mdavis]

We are not concluding in A and C apart from determining within rules that the observed features meet certain criteria and are factual.

Rules? Whose rules? Doesn't this harken back to the old days of point counting and the rule of 12, or 17, or ....? Yet another problem raises its ugly head when we attempt to define the factual nature of observed features. Pat Wertheim says he sees more shades of gray and lacks colors, so each of us observes features differently. Is that an ending ridge or the eye of faith?

[Amy Hart]

Having read all the previous posts, two thoughts come to my mind:

1. All scientific decisions are subjective. All data must be interpreted for a conclusion to be reached.

2. A subjective decision does not equal a biased decision.

The general public seems to have elevated "science" to a status that is not necessarily deserved. Scientists have performed experiments and proven that XXX is true, therefore it is scientific. No one (in the general public) has gone back to check the figures, or recreate the experiment. They take the conclusions at face value. Other scientists, however, will check the figures and try to recreate the experiment. They're the ones who expose unsubstantiated claims.

When you describe a comparison to a jury, you are showing them the path you took to your conclusion. Because most people can see, and many people recognize patterns, I think they feel more connected to your explanations and conclusions than they would to those of a drug chemist or DNA analyst. There are no unfamiliar steps on your path to conclusion (e.g. mass spectroscopy, electrophoresis), so non-experts do not give fingerprints the same elevation that, because of a few multisyllable words, they give to the other forensic disciplines.

The science of fingerprints is also more closely associated with law enforcement than with physical sciences. Therefore, people who are skeptical of law enforcement (while holding science in great esteem) will transfer that skepticism to fingerprints.

My advice is not to react too strongly to the thought that your conclusion is subjective. Embrace subjectivity. Without it, you cannot form a conclusion. Just don't be biased...

[Les Bush]

Within the ACEV methodology there are built in criteria that have the purpose of meeting the test of reasonableness. The phases are meant to be progressive and culiminate in challenging the expert for a subjective decision that sufficient unique details have been found in sequence. In the formative decision process there are safeguards that ensure both scientific and legal expectations are being met. The rules and conditions are taught as part of what fingerprint identification science constitutes. FRD levels 1,2 & 3 have been defined, same scale, same area of FRD, ridge tracing, ridge counting and the one discrepancy rule all combine to guide the decision process of the examiner. Objective reasoning takes place during the first two phases of A & C, the decisions reached should be proveable based upon factual data both supporting or nullifying the hypothesis. The conditions for E require an overall subjective decision relying upon the experts qualified opinion and expressed as a scientific conclusion. To counterbalance the legal and scientific arguments of subjectivity the objective method utilises V as a check process.

[Thomas Taylor]

Very well and succinctly put, Les. All points covered, "objective" and "subjective" differentiated. Thank you!

[mdavis]

Objective reasoning takes place during the first two phases of A & C, the decisions reached should be proveable based upon factual data both supporting or nullifying the hypothesis.

"Objective" reasoning assumes that we all see the same details in a latent print and control print, AND that there is a hard and fast set of "rules" available in applying those assumed identical observations. Since none of us will see FRD exactly the same and since there are no rules that take into account these variations in perception, we are still straying into the subjective forest in those borderline comparisons.

It is in the A that latent prints are kept or discarded. That is a subjective decision based on your agencies policies, your own level of expertise, your own ability to "see" FRD, and your own willingness on how far to push the edge of the envelope. The subjectivity continues throughout the C as we decide whether to discard or retain a candidate for E. If there was only objectivity in AC, then there would be no argument, disagreement or discussion of those borderline individualizations. We would all see the same things, and the rules would define what we saw and how to call E.

Good post, Amy Hart!