Comments on: To catch a thief and fool a scientist

By: Psihobrlog preporučuje 31/03/2011 « PsihoBrlog

Psihobrlog preporučuje 31/03/2011 « PsihoBrlog — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:08:25 +0000

[...] radio program govori o tome da su otisci prstiju (koji služe za identifikovanje počinitelja zločina) predmet ozbiljnih psiholoških predrasuda, i [...]

By: chuckbluestein

chuckbluestein — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:04:40 +0000

In America, to convict it, has to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. This does cast a shadow of doubt on relying on this.

By: To catch a thief and fool a scientist — AKA Also Known as

To catch a thief and fool a scientist — AKA Also Known as — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:16:03 +0000

[...] View the original article here Related Reading: This may be connectedNo Related Post [...]

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:56:34 +0000

Excellent program, nice find. I’m shocked after hearing the AFIS procedure that this was not obviously open to bias. It appears to be a very flawed procedure. I wonder how many poor souls lost their liberty due to errors? Truly eye opening.

By: Steve Merrick

Steve Merrick — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:05:20 +0000

It’s surprising how few people know (or accept) that we generally perceive what we expect to perceive.

By: To catch a thief and fool a scientist - The Word of Rob

To catch a thief and fool a scientist - The Word of Rob — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:01:28 +0000

[...] If you only listen to one radio programme this month, make it this one. The BBC Radio 4 programme Fi Instapaper: Mine [...]

By: Day of Ségolène Tarte » Lunchtime and embodied cognition

Day of Ségolène Tarte » Lunchtime and embodied cognition — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:38:39 +0000

[...] http://mindhacks.com/2011/03/17/to-catch-a-thief-and-fool-a-scientist/ [...]

By: gyges

gyges — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:18:58 +0000

"...aren't fingerprints matched through a computer program?" Fingerprints are screeed with AFIS which reduces the potential number of prints that may match. The fingerprint examiner matches one of these prints. (This is covered in the report). A strange difference in validity of screening assays is accepted by society between searching for disease and searching for criminal behaviour. I think the reason is due to an Us and Them attitude. Screening for diseases such as cancer are to be applied to Us and so most be robust, ie, they must have false positive and false negative rates as well as the initial background incidence rates. Criminal screenings (fingerprints / sniffer dogs) are for them, criminals who are certainly not one of us; therefore the assay can be based upon ignorance and myth. Pathetic isn't it?

By: Emmy

Emmy — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:32:41 +0000

Sounds like a great show on BBC. And pardon my ignorance but aren’t fingerprints matched through a computer program? If not I think it would be a pretty good argument for a “blind” forensics examiner method.