Is Fingerprint Analysis a Science?

According to Wiki, polygraphs are even said to have a better accuracy rate, at about 61%:

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Polygraph:

​

Polygraphy has little credibility among scientists. Despite claims of 90-95% validity by polygraph advocates, and 95-100% by businesses providing polygraph services, critics maintain that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.

---

It's disturbing that such horribly inaccurate identification methods are allowed in court, where they can be used to completely alter another person's life.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

And I don't think eyewitness testimony should be allowed in court. There was, I think, a thread about a similar topic on the short-lived spin-off forum Politicus Maximus... but the Wayback Machine doesn't seem to recognize the name.But the issue here, I guess, is the status of fingerprint analysis as a science or not.I think the whole thing is a bunch of match-up and puzzle-doing; more of a hobby, really, and so even if practiced scientifically, probably not overly reliable since it depends on the abilities of the analysts more than on some rigorous standards that are harder to screw up.Jon

Perhaps. As I said, though, even if we find a way to practice fingerprint analysis scientifically, can we ever consider the analysts to be reliable?I brought up polygraphs earlier. Reading the Wiki article further, we find this:

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Polygraph:

​

In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion..."

---

How does the testimony of finger print analysts compare?Even when we make the practice scientific, how reliable, really, are the 'experts' giving the testimony?Jon

Agreed, but computers aren't put on witness stands. Don't be silly. 'Experts' can be bought and sold like anyone else. Look at the oil 'scientists' who can't admit that global warming is a problem. The technical aspects of it, sure. But that certainly doesn't seem to be true about the legal aspects.Jon

The answer to that question comes with the answer to the question of the OP: Is fingerprint analysis a science? If so, then obviously anyone practicing it should be considered a scientist. Which one is that? The topic of the thread is fingerprints. While I realize the motive for starting the thread was just to discuss the scientific basis for fingerprint analysis, there have understandably developed several conversations regarding the legal reliability and validity of expert fingerprint analyst testimony.Jon

I think we're in agreement here.There is definitely a science to fingerprint analysis.