Is Fingerprint Analysis a Science?

Well (as a starting point) scientific conclusions are necessarily based on scientific evidence whilst opinions have no such restriction. One can have an opinion that is based on evidence, but one can equally hold an opinion that isn't based on evidence or even an opinion which contradicts evidence.Conclusions based on fingerprint analysis would seem to qualify as scientific conclusions rather than opinions on this basis. The fact that the analysis was done poorly in this particular example shouldn't detract from that.

Surely this is just a question of technology. A sufficiently advanced pattern matching algorithm could surely allow computers to do all the matching required and to rigorously determine the statistical likelihood of error based on the quality of any given fingerprint.If the premise of fingerprint matching is sound but human involvement in matching is the failing here then that can be technologically overcome.

Well if human fingerprints genuinely are unique and can reliably be used to identify people then it is just a matter of technology capable of reliably and accurately doing the necessary pattern matching.With such technology in place I don't see that the role of analysts would be of much consequence.It seems that existing problems with fingerprinting are down to human elements that technology should eventually be able to overcome.

Whether a form of evidence is scientific or not is not dependent on the people using that evidence understanding it (or misunderstanding it and thus misapplying it).If fingerprints are a method of identifying people then accurate pattern matching and error estimation is just a question of technology.If currently we don't have appropriate technology and we are relying on highly fallible human judgements then that is an issue and does indeed raise doubts about individual conclusions. But it doesn't make the process of fingerprint identification itself unscientific.If people (e.g. juries) don't understand the nature of such evidence then - again - that doesn't make the evidence itself unscientific either.

If the problem is with the human presentation of evidence rather than the evidence itself then that is a problem with the legal process. Not a problem with forensic science being somehow unscientific. The fact that some scientists are deluded, incompetent or willing to lie for money doesn't make geology (in the case of 'oil scientists') or forensic science unscientific does it? Then that is a problem with the legal process rather than anything to do with how scientific or unscientific fingerprint identification through pattern matching is.