Are we scientists?

[Bill]

You appeared to have struck a nerve today, Michele. Lots of posts in a short time.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 2nd ed., offers the following:

Science:
1. originally, the state or fact of knowing;
2. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied;
3. a branch of knowledge or study, especially one concerned with systematizing facts, principles, and methods, as by experimentation and hypotheses; [the science of mathematics]
4. a. the systemized study of nature and the physical world; b. any branch of this; [see natural science]
5. skill or technique based upon systemized training [the science of cooking]

Scientist:

A specialist in science, as in biology, chemistry, etc.

I like number 5 myself.

One examiner explained to me many years ago, "latent print work is a lot like cooking; we follow a recipe to achieve predictable results."

Bill

[Pat A. Wertheim]

When we look up words, do we use the Webster’s dictionary or a scientific dictionary?

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 2nd ed., offers the following:

I sense a conundrum here. Does Webster define science? Does science define Webster?

[Gerald Clough]

Dictionaries are rarely helpful, unless you are puzzled when you read a word in context and still haven't a clue as to what it means. So we go elsewhere.

Huxley did pretty well: "Science is simply common sense at its best - that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic."

Forensic examiners will like: "Science is the systematic classification of experience." George Henry Lewes (1817-78) English writer and critic.

As well as: "Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent, common sense rounded out and minutely articulated." Santyana

I am fond of this one, because it fits well with my holding that scientific certainty is not required: "Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?"- Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

One examiner explained to me many years ago, "latent print work is a lot like cooking; we follow a recipe to achieve predictable results."

Would that it were so. A friend of ours has taken up baking as a serious interest and regularly presents us with cakes and such as he tries out recipes. They are lovely to behold. When cut, they are beautifully uniform, worthy of illustrating a cookbook or menu. They are also almost inedible. (I suppose, though, that it still conforms to the above statement. His results are regrettably predictable.)

[Pat A. Wertheim]

A friend of ours has taken up baking as a serious interest . . . .

My Dad owned a bakery. He always told me that cooking was a craft, but baking was a science. Your friend must be a scientist, but Bill's old teacher was just a technician.

[Bill]

Just a few more random thoughts:

I mentioned to someone earlier today I took a number of undergraduate courses, criminal justice, biology, etc, at a local college many years ago. The one thing the college was noted for particulary was its culinary program. I had a boss who decided he want to be a chef and enrolled in the program. There was a required text, also required at the Culinary Institute of America, titled "On Food and Cooking." I thumbed through the book and it reminded me of a chemistry book. It explained why some ingredients work and others don't, and what the process of cooking and preparation does to the chemistry of the food itself.

The analogy by the person who told me latent print work was a lot like cooking obviously did not sit well. It was their thought, not mine. (Some of you are thinking, '"Yea, right!") But it is true.

I was just stirring the pot a bit (no pun intended) when I chimed in with my two cents worth.

I have been struggling with a lot of the ideas thrown out here today myself. I have had arguments with people over this topic. There are some latent examiners that deny (usually in private) that fingerprint analysis is a science, and further deny that examiners are scientists. So, there is hardly unanimity among the rank and file.

I like Gerald's post with the quotes. I find those helpful. Gerald, I do believe dictionaries are a standard of sorts. Or, perhaps the dictionary is more of a concise consensus of the prevailing acceped meanings during a certain era. Language, words and their meanings are evolutionary. Much or most of what we deal with is arued in the legal realm. In law, words and ideas have consequences. The law is made up of words and proper understanding and interpretation is important.

My question to Pat (just for kicks and grins) is, do you believe the dictionary defines science, or does science define Webster? As an amateur (very amateur) wordsmith, I am curious.

Gee! Perhaps this topic could go on longer than the ones with all those folks hurling accusations at each other over the SCRO and the Mckie case. Wouldn't that be a miracle!

This is actually creative and meaningful discussion!

[Pat A. Wertheim]

My question to Pat (just for kicks and grins) is, do you believe the dictionary defines science, or does science define Webster? As an amateur (very amateur) wordsmith, I am curious.

Actually, Bill, I was being facetious. The word "conundrum" can be an "Is A = B, Or is B = A" play on words that involves a pun. And please believe me, I meant no slight toward you, as I think your questions and comments here have been invaluable.

My whole position so far has been to not take a position. Actually, I am ambivalent on this issue, i.e., I can see it both ways. And that goes to my eagerness early on to tell the story of the cop/LPE/radar operator. Is radar science? Is a radar cop a scientist? What if he understands the Doepler effect? Is he a scientist if he can explain in court the physics behind radar, but only a technician if he can only say he checked the calibration of the instrument?

And I was serious about my comment regarding baking as science but cooking as technology. But I'm ambivalent about that, too.

Let's keep playing the game. The important thing in this discussion is not that there is a "winner," but that we all have to think about the various ideas and, in doing so, increase our comprehension so we understand our own positions and can articulate them better. I would absolutely love to see this thread outdistance anything on the silly SCRO and the various McKie threads. I think Michele has set a new record on this chat board for first day hits and replies.

Way to go, Michele! You're the bomb!

[g.]

OK, I'll throw my two cents in (altho as comedian Steven Wright notes: "Why is it a penny for your thoughts, but you put your 2 cents in? Seems like someone is making some money off this scam..."

I am a scientist (in my opinion). I just happen to also be a fingerprint examiner. Being a fingerprint examiner doesn't make me a scientist. Performing comparisons doesn't (per se) mean I am a scientist. To me it's all in the application. Here I agree with Michele's previous writings that how one applies scientific method and lives, breathes, eats, sleeps sci method and asking questions, testing hypotheses, etc...that's the science.

I can see a continuum where on one end some exams are so routine and automatic, you barely need a human: lights out afis type situation, where the computer literally counts minutiae and you monitor the computer. That's a technician. On the other end, I can think of cases where the distortions are so complex that you need someone like Alice Maceo, or Josh Bergeron, recently Michele for her "is it a scar?" case, etc. to test hypotheses, collect data, and draw conclusions about what hypotheses are supported and which aren't to continue to weigh your evidence, make inferences, and reach a decision. THe McKie case comes to mind. I read a lot of testimony from technicians playing "scientists". For me, Arie Zeelenberg truly stood out as a scientist, b/c hypotheses were generated about the cause of the distortion, and he actually tested them. He brought experimental data to the table with videos showing effects from distortions that were not supported by the 66 counter clockwise twist theory. That's a scientist bringing science to the examination.

I have no problem with 95% of our basic casework being essentially a highly technical skill and performing technician like duties (hey even doctors fill scrips and due routine "non-doctory" stuff and it doesn't make them any less of a doctor). But in those 5% of cases where significant understanding of how we make decisions, how we apply scientific method, how we test our hypotheses, assess risk, cost/benefit, etc. That's where I think the real science is. ANd I don't think all examiners recognize that or apply it the same, so as Michele has pointed out in her "Etiology..." paper, not everyone is doing this as a science (especially in those cases that need it).

Lastly, when it comes to Daubert (Bill S. mentioned where some of this push came from)....THAT IS WHERE I want the scientist testifying. Defending the science. One who understands the science, knows the research and it's limitations--what it supports and doesn't. The last thing I want to see (but do) is a technician spouting dogma, playing "scientist", and couldn't be bothered to read papers and research b/c "he/she knows it when he/she sees it practicing their infallible method with zero error rate". Here is where unfortunately, i think we need to parse out the technicians from the scientists. And frankly, most people don't want to do a Daubert hearing, so why not separate those issues out...keeping the technician focused on how they do their job (and they do it exceptionally well), following SOPs, etc. and let scientists handle the defense of the science.

Probably not the most popular view on this, but well... just putting in my 2 cents (although it probably was only worht a penny)

g.

(and that's why I think agencies should allow their scientists (and technicians) to voice their scientific (technical) views and be able to share publicly their knowledge without having to go through a spokesperson, legal department, or get supervisors permission to post on a public chat board dedicated to scientific (and technical!!!) issues.)

[David L. Grieve]

Ah, Glenn, while I share your idealism about open, scientific debate, the school of hard knocks taught me that the connection you noted on another thread is the reason this has not become a reality. Quasi-military organizations do not want diversity no matter how much they state otherwise. I regularly had my knuckles whacked, and others fared worse. I still remember receiving articles for publication from the FBI. At least a dozen different people, including legal, reviwed and approved a so-called scientific paper. When a member of the editorial board raised issues, the response from the FBI reminded me of Redd Foxx playing Fred Sanford. Elizabeth, it is the big one.

Pat, your memory is better than you claim. It is the curse of being an applied science (skill, technique or whatever) that what we call ourselves can be accepted or rejected by the gatekeeper. Only if we are particularly sensitive, or snobbish, is the designation of any importance. A friend of mine reacted to a ruling that compared document examiners to tug boat pilots rather than scientiests by shrugging and saying who do you want navigating the tricky currents of justice? If you recall, we were asked before the end of the Daubert hearing in Mitchell if we wanted to be argued as scientists. Kumho had just been decided which, in essence, said the same standards applied regardless of what is in a name. We picked scientist as the clasiest. Since his honor never got around to putting his ruling in writing, I don't know what he called us, if anything.

[Gerald Clough]

Well, that's really kind of the point, that it doesn't much matter what you call it when (1) the courts know what they and other courts mean, (2) they explicitly say what they mean and merely use a label the way we often do here to avoid using a long qualification every time we refer to the subject, and (3) they are going to apply the same tests, no matter what you say you are. Of course, you don't want to look a fool by claiming to be a "scientist" and then getting backed into a most unscientific position, but even most of that is overlooked by judges who are used to fielding BS and choosing between two grades of manure, because no matter how it smells, they still want to produce a rose or a reasonable facsimile.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

I can see a continuum where on one end some exams are so routine and automatic, you barely need a human . . .
I have no problem with 95% of our basic casework being essentially a highly technical skill . . .
But in those 5% of cases where significant understanding of how we make decisions, how we apply scientific method, how we test our hypotheses, assess risk, cost/benefit, etc. That's where I think the real science is.

It is the curse of being an applied science (skill, technique or whatever) that what we call ourselves can be accepted or rejected by the gatekeeper.

I do not believe the definition of science is black and white. So let's expand on g.'s continuum. Consider a scale with, say the very darkest of grays on one end and the very lightest shades on the other, with a smooth transition from the darkest to the lightest. We could put pure science or exact science on the light end (math, maybe) and very questionable sciences on the dark end (how about graphology, astrology, and my favorite, "political science"). The question is where to draw a line defining science on one side and quasi-science, technology, bad science, and fake science on the other.

Expand the thought to include the concept that maybe not every discipline is a single, thin line on this spectrum. It seems to me that Fingerprints is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum and has a bandwidth of gray running from a medium light shade of gray to a slightly darker shade. Some would draw the dividing line between science and non-science to one side or the other and include all of the fingerprint discipline either in or out of science. I like g.'s thought, that the line dividing science from technology in regards to fingerprints can be drawn inside the discipline.

And to that, Gerald seems to be saying that it is up to the judge to decide where to draw the line in a particular case, but not only can judges can scoot the line up or down, they can even move disciplines around on the scale to try and make the rose smell sweet.

P. S. for Bill -- Seriously, Bill, baking and cooking are on the spectrum, too. Should we draw the line to either side of them both, or between them?

[Bill]

The assumption is that a line must be drawn.

I have had occasional ongoing arguments with another examiner over this topic. Sometimes it is over the issue, are we scientists? Other times it was over the issue of my opinion or position that, the job descriptions for latent examiner should require at least, a minimum number of science credits, especially, if the applicants lack experience. I am a little softer on this position due to pragmatism on my part. However, I do not necessarily disagree with any agency's policies of requiring a "hard science" degree. (I personally think a well-rounded staff from various academic disciplines is beneficial.) However, we live in an era where a minimum of a science degree will be the standard requirement for our profession. I recall an article by Dave Grieve many years ago in which he made an eloquent and compelling case for hiring candidates with science degrees. I cannot recall the title, but perhaps Dave can fill us in if he chooses. As with all of Dave's writing, it is worth reading.

Anyway, the other examiner with whom I argue objected that there were numerous scientific contributions throughout history from people with little education. His favorite example was Thomas Edison. He said few people have had an impact on the scientific community as well as society, than Thomas Edison. Was Thomas Edison a scientist? Essentially, he carried out experiments, tested hypotheses, etc, presumably, similarly as describe by Glenn.

Last year, the Smithsonian History and Technology Museum reopened after a long major renovation. I took my children there and spent the better part of a day browsing through the extensive collections and exhibits. There was a major exhibit about electricity and Edison's influence. One caption stated that Edison never thought of himself as a scientist, but rather as an inventor. Was Edison incorrect in his own self-assessment? I would argue that he was, in fact, a scientist.

I agree with Pat that the issue is not as black and white as some would believe. We testify as "experts" in a particularly narrow field of study. The prosecutor does not make a motion for the latent examiner to be accepted as a scientist. He/she makes a motion for the latent examiner to be accepted as an expert. Does the expert have to be a scientist? Or, is it more import to know that we are applying the scientific principles and methods, and are able to articulate and communicate that effectively?

Please excuse the wandering around in my writing. Am I making sense? There are some distractions going on as I write. (I wish I could write like Dave Grieve!)

[David L. Grieve]

Numerous examples exist of exceptional people making contributions without the "benefit" of formal education. I believe Albert Einstein did not have a resume that would knock your socks off as far as educational foundation. I picture his application today going into the reject file, and that a NAS review would probably find his theories are based upon unsubstaniated assumptions with adequate proof lacking.

Bill, I like your concept that the significant criteria are adhering to scientific principles. I've heard some pretty bad explanations of how what we do fits the scienfitic method, and I've heard some excellent ones. I've heard very good descriptions of experimentation and some that made me want to cry. As to the article you recall that I wrote, I am not sure. I did a presentation in Pensacola in 1989 to comvered a history of fraining. I submitted it to the JFI and John Nielson wisely cut in in two. One became an article on training since I received my training from Ferrier and the other became an editorial on more subjective issues. My guess is it is the second. I can't remember the titles John suggested, but I think he published them in 1990.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

I received my training from Ferrier. . . .

Did he have a science degree? Was he a scientist or a technician or just a cop? If he wasn't a degreed scientist, how can his training be scientific or his students become scientists?

[Gerald Clough]

And to that, Gerald seems to be saying that it is up to the judge to decide where to draw the line in a particular case, but not only can judges can scoot the line up or down, they can even move disciplines around on the scale to try and make the rose smell sweet.

That's good to remember, too. Judges deciding admissibility aren't endorsing the particular conclusions in that case or even the usual and customary ways experts in a field routinely conclude. For all the weight of words that go into arguing the point, it comes down to something pretty simple. The first step is establishing reliability. (So we don't have to eve go on to consider is an astrologer's testimony is probative.) That's not so difficult, since most experts put forth can demonstrate qualification to speak on what they intend to speak on. The question becomes does the legitimate value of the evidence to assist the finder of fact outweigh any unfair prejudice or confusion it would likely induce? If the evidence isn't sufficiently relevant, it has little real probative value and therefore any prejudicial value is too much. General experts who don't speak from direct inquiry into something like fingerprints of eyewitnesses may have something to say, and it might even be somewhat helpful, but they are applying general knowledge of a broad nature to a circumscribed technical task and are therefore more likely to confuse than to clarify.

The evaluation is worked out differently for different sorts of evidence. The question of a child-victim's autopsy photos is different from an expert's testimony. But the tests are the same. (Although it may be up to experts to argue the value of the photos. Unless they make a valuable point, they aren't getting in.) And they are true judgment calls. They aren't things you can demonstrate to clearly fall one side or the other. Which is why the SCOTUS wasn't at all mandating a checklist for admissibility and why there's little second-guessing of judges' decisions, so long as they considered the simple issues. It would have been very interesting if the state prosecutor had been able to take the state court decision to exclude fingerprint evidence up through the appeals process. I suspect the higher courts would have deferred to the trial court's decision, since the issues were argued at length, if not well.

This is exactly what would be at issue in a trial where the state proposed testimony on agreement short of Individualization we've been talking about in the other thread. First would be reliability. Since the testimony would be only about observations, about data, it would no doubt be found to be reliable when the observer was an examiner. The argument would then center on whether it was legitimately helpful and outweighed the potential to confuse the jury about what it means. Nowhere in it would there be any attention paid to any imagined difference between science and any other description of the expertise. Judges are overall pretty smart about ignoring bleatings that something isn't "scientific" and sticking to the practical applications. And the sponsors shouldn't imagine that they won on account of sustaining any claim to "science." They won on the reliability and value tests.

[Neville]

Who cares?

I wouldn't make a scientist big toe but I see that we are being treated as scientist. The reality is that the best fingerprint experts I have met are usually good artists or should I say more arty than scientific. The best was an actor in fact, I always use to say if one of my daughters were raped I would call in Doug to do the scene and the searching of the print but I would have some one else following recording every thing he did with a video, he was no good at recording what he did. You will argue that that is the most important thing, the recording what you did, but I argue no it is finding out who the offender is, then someone who is articulate in the box and he was plus he had a memory like an elephant.