C H A P T E R SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH SUPPORTING THE .
CHAPTERSCIENTIFIC RESEARCHSUPPORTING THEFOUNDATIONS OF FRICTIONRIDGE EXAMINATIONSGlenn LangenburgCONTENTS314.1 Introduction2714.5 Conclusions314.2 The Nature of ScientificInquiry2714.6 Reviewers714.3 Scientific Research Related toFriction Ridge Examination2714.7 References2614.4 Future Directions for ResearchRelated to Friction RidgeExamination14–1
Scientific Research Supporting the Foundations of Friction Ridge Examinations C H A P T E R 1 4CHAPTER 14SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHSUPPORTING THEFOUNDATIONS OF FRICTIONRIDGE EXAMINATIONSGlenn Langenburg14.1 IntroductionWhen some people think of research, what comes tomind are images of individuals in white lab coats, lookingup intermittently to take data measurements and jot downnotes. This is a very limited and narrow view of research.Investigative reporters, attorneys, police detectives, engineers, authors, actors, and, of course, scientists, all perform research. The scientist, however, performs scientificresearch. Simply defined, research is an inquiry into anysubject or phenomenon. Scientific research, then,can be defined as a scientific inquiry into a subject orphenomenon.What makes an inquiry “scientific”? What is science? Whatis scientific method? What are the rules for a scientific inquiry? The answers to these questions are not simple, andare the subject of an entire realm of philosophy of science.This chapter will review some of these topics, relating theissue to friction ridge skin science. The reader, however,is encouraged to read more regarding the philosophy ofscience to better understand the complexity of science andscientific inquiry.14.2 The Nature of Scientific Inquiry14.2.1 Science and FalsifiabilityThe word science is derived from the Latin scientia (meaning knowledge), which is itself derived from the Latinverb scire (to know). Science can be defined as a body ofknowledge obtained by systematic observation or experimentation. This definition is very broad, and, under such apermissive definition, many fields of study may be definedas science. Scientific creationism, theological science,Freudian psychoanalysis, and homeopathic medicine couldarguably be classified as sciences.Sir Karl Popper (1902–1994) recognized the difficulty ofdefining science. Popper, perhaps one of the most respected and widely known philosophers of science, separatedscience from nonscience with one simple principle:14–3
C H A P T E R 1 4 Scientific Research Supporting the Foundations of Friction Ridge Examinationsfalsifiability. Separation, or demarcation, could be doneif a theory or law could possibly be falsified or provenwrong (Popper, 1959, 1972). A theory or law would fail thislitmus test if there was no test or experiment that couldbe performed to prove the theory or law incorrect. Popperbelieved that a theory or law can never be proven conclusively, no matter the extent of testing, data, or experimentation. However, testing that provides results which contradict a theory or law can conclusively refute the theory orlaw, or in some instances, give cause to alter the theory orlaw. Thus, a scientific law or theory is conclusively falsifiable although it is not conclusively verifiable (Carroll, 2003).Although the Popperian view of science is a widely heldview amongst scientists, it is important to note that theU.S. Supreme Court has also taken this view of science(Daubert, 1993, p 593). Justice Blackmun, writing for themajority, cited Popper, specifically noting that a scientific explanation or theory must be capable of empiricaltesting. The issue of falsification was also raised duringthe Daubert hearing for the admissibility of latent printevidence during U.S. v Mitchell (July 13, 1999). (For anexplanation of Daubert hearings, see Chapter 13.)14.2.2 Scientific Laws and TheoriesThere is a grand misconception, even within the scientificcommunity, that scientists first make observations; thenthey postulate a hypothesis; after rigorous testing, thehypothesis is accepted, thus becoming a theory; then thetheory, after enjoying many years of success, without anyinstances of being refuted, is accepted as a scientific law.This hierarchical structure is a myth (McComas, 1996).Schoolhouse Rock (Frishberg and Yohe, 1975) describedsuch a hierarchy for bills on their journey to becoming laws.Such is not the case in science.Scientific laws and theories, though related, represent different knowledge within science. McComas stated, “Lawsare generalizations, principles or patterns in nature andtheories are the explanations of those generalizations”.Scientific laws describe general principles, patterns, andphenomena in the universe. Scientific theories explain whythese general principles, patterns, and phenomena occur.The verbs associated with laws and theories speak to thenature of these concepts: scientific laws are discovered;scientific theories are invented (McComas, 1996).Exactly what defines a law and exactly what defines atheory is contested within the philosophy of science. In14–4fact, some philosophers of science (Van Fraassen, 1989,pp 180–181) believe that no laws exist at all. However, themajority of modern philosophers of science believe thatlaws exist and there are two popular competing definitions:systems and universals (Thornton, 2005).The systems definition of a law defines a law within adeductive system. Axioms are stated that allow deductiveconclusions. The strength of the law is within the truth ofthe generalized statement and its simplicity. As an example,if “all human friction ridge skin is unique”, and I am a human,then one can deduce from the law (if true) that my frictionridge skin is unique. Instances of nonunique friction ridgeskin would obviously show the law to be false.The universals definition of a law defines the law as a relationship or “contingent necessitation” between universals(universals being just about anything). The wording of sucha law would be similar to: Humans exist. Unique friction ridge skin exists. The law is the relationship of these two entities:Humans possess unique friction ridge skin.In either case, laws can be described by the followingfeatures (Hempel and Oppenheim, 1948; Zynda, 1994): Laws are universal. Laws have unlimited scope. Laws contain no designation of individual, particularobjects. Laws contain only “purely qualitative” predicates.Theories, on the other hand, are explanations for laws. Forexample, Sir Isaac Newton discovered the “Law of Gravity”.This law is universal, unlimited, not just applicable to aunique object, and is descriptive and predictive. However,this law does not explain how and why gravity works. Scientists of Newton’s era proposed waves of gravity emittedfrom objects, attracting each other, operating similarly tomagnetism. The attractive forces of gravity comprised theTheory of Gravity. Later, Albert Einstein found instanceswhere the theory did not hold up (e.g., light bendingtoward massive objects in space). According to the accepted theory of the time, Einstein’s observations were not possible. Einstein proposed a new and revolutionary theory ofgravity to explain this phenomenon. Einstein’s new theorywas called the “General Theory of Relativity” and describedcurvatures in the space–time continuum. These curvatures
Scientific Research Supporting the Foundations of Friction Ridge Examinations C H A P T E R 1 4were due to massive objects exerting their force of gravityon the space–time continuum, very similar to bowling ballsplaced on an outstretched blanket. Einstein’s proposedtheory was not initially accepted, but after years of testsand experiments, his theory gained acceptance.This is the true nature of science. Laws are discovered.Theories are invented to explain them. The laws andtheories are tested by experiments, observations, and hypothesis testing. Hypotheses are woven together into thetheories as the theories are modified. Theories are neverproven, only continually tested and updated. Theories canbe accepted for hundreds of years, but with the advent ofnewer technology, theories are subjected to new tests andrigors, and eventually outdated or incomplete theories giveway, absorbed into new, mature theories. The science offriction ridge skin has experienced exactly such trials.14.2.3 Laws and Theories in FrictionRidge ExaminationIf we accept the definition that a scientific law is a generalized description of patterns and phenomena in nature anda scientific theory is the explanation for that law, then whattheories and laws exist within the discipline of friction ridgescience?The two most basic laws are:1) Human friction ridge skin is unique.Each individual possesses a unique arrangement of friction ridge skin. Specifically, the ridgearrangements, the robust arrangements of theminutiae within the ridge patterns, and the shapesand structures of the ridges all combine to forma unique arrangement of friction ridge skin in thehands and feet of each individual.2) Human friction ridge skin is persistent (permanent)throughout the individual’s lifetime.Specifically, what is meant by persistence is thatthe sequence of the ridges and the arrangementof the robust minutiae do not change throughouta person’s lifetime. This is not to say that thefriction ridge skin does not change over time. Itdoes. Friction ridge skin expands as people growfrom childhood to adulthood. Skin cells constantlyslough off. The substructure of the skin changesover time and ridge heights decrease (Chackoand Vaidya, 1968). The number of visible incipient ridges increases as we age (Stücker et al.,2001). Hairline creases and wrinkles proliferateas we age. All these factors describe a dynamicand changing friction ridge skin. Yet the arrangement of the minutiae and the ridge sequences isvery robust and reproducible. There is evidence tosupport that third-level details (e.g., ridge shapesand pore locations) are persistent; this is exploredlater in the chapter (see section 14.3.2.2).The next question of interest is, Are these scientific laws?According to Popper, to satisfy the criteria for scientificlaws, these laws must be falsifiable. Clearly, both laws areeasily falsifiable. One must simply find instances wheredifferent individuals have indistinguishable friction ridgeskin or instances where the arrangement of the ridgesin friction ridge skin is observed to naturally change overtime (excluding injury or trauma, of course). However, inthe history of this discipline, no such instances have beendemonstrated.Suppose one individual, in the entire world, actually didhave a fingerprint that matched someone else’s fingerprint.Obviously, the forensic community would be shocked, andthe verity of the law would be questioned. But in a purelyPopperian view (Thornton, 2005):No observation is free from the possibility oferror—consequently we may question whetherour experimental result was what it appearedto be. Thus, while advocating falsifiability as thecriterion of demarcation for science, Popper explicitly allows for the fact that in practice a singleconflicting or counter-instance is never sufficientmethodologically to falsify a theory [or law], andthat scientific theories [or laws] are often retainedeven though much of the available evidenceconflicts with them, or is anomalous with respectto them.Thus, Popper advocated constant testing to refute atheory or law. A single instance of falsifiability shouldspawn additional testing.Fundamental theories exist that explain the two laws ofuniqueness and persistency. Uniqueness is explained bybiological variations (genetic influences and random localized stresses) within the developing fetus. Persistence ismaintained by the substructural formations of the developing skin (hemidesmosomes, papillae, and basal layer).14–5
C H A P T E R 1 4 Scientific Research Supporting the Foundations of Friction Ridge ExaminationsThese are theories that explain the laws. These theorieshave empirical evidence and testing that support, but donot conclusively prove, them. Additional information maybe learned that will cause these theories to be adjustedand incorporate the new data. Thus, science is evolvingand dynamic.14.2.4 Hypothesis TestingTheories and laws are commonly challenged throughhypothesis testing. The results of testing a hypothesis cansupport or refute a theory or law. In some instances, theresults will call for modifications to be made to a law ortheory, which in turn leads to further hypotheses to testunder the new or modified law.Although there are no rigorous formulas or recipes fortesting hypotheses and designing experiments (nor shouldthere be), a generic model for hypothesis testing can bedescribed. The steps of this model are often referred to as“scientific method”. Huber and Headrick (1999) noted thatthe term scientific method is a misnomer. They stated thatscientific method is derived from epistemology (the studyof knowledge and justified belief, according to the StanfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy). Francis Bacon defined a basicapproach to scientific method encapsulated in four steps:(1) observe, (2) measure, (3) explain, and (4) verify (Huberand Headrick, 1999). This description in modern times hasbeen modified into a hypothesis testing model. The basicsteps of the hypothesis testing model have been describedas:1 Observation. Hypothesis formulation. Experimentation. Data analysis and conclusion. Reproducibility. Communication of results.The researcher must first make a specific observationor note a general problem or query. Then a hypothesis isformulated (often referred to as the “null hypothesis”). Thehypothesis is testable and falsifiable. A counter-hypothesisis also formulated. A suitable experiment is designed to1This basic model can be found in most elementary collegiate science textsin various forms.14–6test the specific hypothesis. Data from the experiment arecollected. These data may be qualitative or quantitative.The data are evaluated, often statistically (though that isnot a requirement), and conclusions are drawn whether toaccept the hypothesis or reject the hypothesis and acceptthe null hypothesis. The results of the experiment shouldbe reproducible by another scientist following the methodology. Finally, the results should be communicated toothers. This is important not only for sharing the knowledgebut also for peer review and critical analysis.14.2.5 Comparison Methodology and TheoryAs an extension of the law that friction ridge skin is unique,if during the deposition of a latent print, the details of thefriction ridge skin are sufficiently recorded on a surface viaresidues on the friction ridge skin, then theoretically thelatent print image can be individualized to the sourcefriction ridge skin.This is what Hempel and Oppenheim (1948) refer to asa derived theory (as opposed to a fundamental theory).The derived theory allows application of the principle tospecific objects or individuals that would be prohibited bythe universality and generality requirements of a law or fundamental theory. However, the theory that latent prints canbe attributed to a unique source of friction ridge skin raisessome questions that are difficult to answer.Even if the friction ridge skin is unique down to the cellsand ridge units, this issue is secondary to whether a latentprint (which will not contain all of the information in thesource skin) can be correctly attributed to its source. Howmuch information must be transferred for the examinerto reliably individualize the latent print? What happens tothe reliability of the details when subjected to distortions?What tolerances are acceptable regarding distortions andthe flexibility of skin?Ultimately, the latent print will be compared to a source (viaknown standard reproductions) by an expert. The comparison methodology generally accepted in the United Statesis the ACE-V methodology. This is an acronym for analysis,comparison, evaluation, and verification. The stages of ACE-Vmethodology are defined as: Analysis—Assessment of thequantity and quality of ridge detail present in an impression; Comparison—A side-by-side comparison of the two
Scientific Research Supporting the Foundations of Friction Ridge Examinations C H A P T E R 1 4impressions; Evaluation—The decision process to declarean individualization, exclusion, or inconclusive opinion;Verification—Verification of the result by another competentexaminer. The ACE process was initially described by Huberas a logical, methodological process for the comparison ofhandwriting evidence (Huber, 1959). (For more about ACE-V,see Chapter 9.)It has been argued elsewhere that ACE-V “methodology”is not in any real sense a methodology and is more akin toa “protocol” (Champod et al., 2004). A methodology wouldtypically encompass very explicit steps, instructions, criteria, and a transparent decision model. This has not beenaccomplished. The ACE-V protocol, however, serves as anappropriate model and descriptor for performing any sort offorensic comparative examination, whereby evidence froman unknown source is compared against appropriate knownexemplars to reach an opinion regarding the source of theevidence. As such a protocol, it offers good suggestions forgeneral forensic examinations such as (1) analysis of theunknown should be done separately, prior to comparisonto the known exemplar, and (2) there must be verificationof the conclusion and peer review of the reasoning used toreach the proffered conclusion.Wertheim has suggested that ACE-V is analogous to thescientific method (Wertheim, 2000, pp 1–8). Huber andHeadrick made a similar analogy for the ACE process withrespect to handwriting comparisons (Huber and Headrick,1999, pp 351–355). The analysis is the assessment (observation) that a latent print has detail sufficient for a comparison. A hypothesis is formed: the latent print originatedfrom Individual A; a null hypothesis is formed: the latentprint did not originate from Individual A. The images arecompared and agreement is found or not found (experimentation). Based on the degree of agreement (data), oneconcludes that there is sufficient evidence during the evaluation stage to individualize or exclude (support or reject thehypothesis as a conclusion). The process is then verified byanother expert during verification (reproducibility).As Hughes (1998, pp 611–615) has noted, the practiceof friction ridge examination is an applied science. The discipline borrows from other sciences to support and justifythe practice of comparing friction ridge images by a specificcomparison methodology.14.3 Scientific Research Related toFriction Ridge Examination14.3.1 Friction Ridge Skin Is UniqueIn order to prove the axiom of unique friction ridge skin tobe true, every area of friction ridge skin on the planet (andall the skin of past and future generations) would need tobe examined. Obviously, this will never be possible. Therefore, to support this premise, the discipline looks to threeareas of support: Empirical observations and evidence. The theory of the formation of friction ridge skin (i.e.,the biological formation). Fingerprint individuality models based on probabilityand statistics.14.3.1.1 Observations. The empirical evidence, for manyyears, was generally viewed by the discipline as the piècede résistance of evidence for the claim that friction ridgeskin is unique. An expert would anticipate under vigorouscross-examination during trials to be asked, “Well, how doyou know that no two fingerprints are alike?” The typical answer of course was, “Because in all the history offingerprints, all the billions of comparisons worldwide, notwo fingerprints have ever been found to be identical, fromdifferent sources, and this includes identical twins.”Although this fact is important and should not be dismissed, it does not satisfy the argument and does notprove that one person’s particular print does not have amatching mate somewhere out there on the planet. Allthat can be inferred from this fact is that, prese
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH SUPPORTING THE . FOUNDATIONS OF FRICTION RIDGE EXAMINATIONS. Glenn Langenburg. C O N T E N T S. 14.5 Conclusions . 3. 14.1 Introduction. 3. 14.2 The Nature of Scientific Inquiry . 7. 14.3 Scientific Research Related to Friction Ridge Examination . 26. 14.4 Future Directions for Research . Related to Friction Ridge .
akuntansi musyarakah (sak no 106) Ayat tentang Musyarakah (Q.S. 39; 29) لًََّز ãَ åِاَ óِ îَخظَْ ó Þَْ ë Þٍجُزَِ ß ا äًَّ àَط لًَّجُرَ íَ åَ îظُِ Ûاَش
Collectively make tawbah to Allāh S so that you may acquire falāḥ [of this world and the Hereafter]. (24:31) The one who repents also becomes the beloved of Allāh S, Âَْ Èِﺑاﻮَّﺘﻟاَّﺐُّ ßُِ çﻪَّٰﻠﻟانَّاِ Verily, Allāh S loves those who are most repenting. (2:22
Python is a general-purpose, interpreted high-level programming language. Its syntax is clear and emphasize readability. Python has a large and comprehensive standard library. Python supports multiple programming paradigms, primarily but not limited to object-oriented, imperative and, to a lesser extent, functional programming .
Extracts from ASME A17.1, Section 2.27 Emergency Operation and Signaling Devices1163 Life Safety Code Handbook 2009 power to be removed from any elevator until the ele-vator is stopped. NOTE (2.27.2.4): The selector switch(es) should nor-mally be placed in the “AUTO” position. 2.27.2.5 When the emergency or standby power sys-tem is designed to operate only one elevator at a time, the .
BTEC Level 2 Technicals are intermediate qualifications for post- 16 learners who want to specialise in a specific occupation, occupational area or technical role. They prepare learners for work or an Apprenticeship by giving them the opportunity to develop sector -specific knowledge, technical and practical skills, and to apply these skills in work -related environments. The qualifications .
asuhan keperawatan Anak. Buku panduan ini diharapkan dapat memberikan arahan bagi mahasiswa dalam pencapaian kompetensi demi menyelesaikan mata ajar keperawatan Anak. Ucapan terima kasih kami ucapkan kepada seluruh tim keperawatan Anak Akademi Keperawatan HKBP Balige yang telah memberikan kontribusi dalam penyusunan buku panduan praktik belajar lapangan ini. Kami menyadari buku panduan ini .
Harvard Business School professor Elton Mayo along with associates F.J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson. It started out by examining the physical and environmental influences of the workplace which included brightness of lights and humidity. It later moved into the psychological aspects involving breaks, group pressure, working hours, and managerial leadership. This team developed ideas .
The requirement for Civil Engineering activities to promote sustainable development and the impact on life and the environment. 6. ICT, fieldwork and laboratory practice. 7. Contexts in which Civil Engineering knowledge can be applied (e.g. operations & management, application & development of technology etc). 8. The principles of managing engineering processes. C. Cognitive, intellectual or .
