I generally agree with Stephen's assessment of "brain fingerprinting." I pointed out the connection with the guilty knowledge test not because the connection is a strong one but because I think it helps students realize that the distinction between science and pseudoscience isn't always a simple matter. You can have students compare and contrast Bashore and Rapp's findings with Farwell's claims of "brain fingerprinting" to help them explore the differences in the two approaches. You can ask them to address questions like: How do the scientific and the pseudoscientific approaches differ? In what ways does the pseudoscientific approach try to make itself appear more scientific? How do the implications of Bashore and Rapp's study differ from the claims that Farwell is making?
I am bothered by this being used in court but I think it is an excellent example to use in class to help students develop their ability to distinguish between the two types of claims and to explore the dimensions on which the two types of claims differ. Richard Platt St. Mary's College of Maryland -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:01 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: RE: Brain fingerprinting On 17 Feb 2004, Richard D. Platt wrote: > <snip> However in support of > Farwell, he appears to have good credentials regarding his grad school > training in ERP research and there is a research paradigm sometimes > called the "guilty knowledge test" that looks something like what he > is advocating. The problem is that Farrell is not presenting this as a version of the guilty knowledge test, which does have some validity in selected circumstances, but as a totally new and infallible "brain fingerprinting" method. The choice of this terminology is deliberate. It's to convince people that his method is as accurate and effective as is standard fingerprinting. The irony is that it's now being recognized that standard fingerprinting itself lacks adequate validation and is increasingly being questioned. But Farrell's most famous case, involving supposedly detecting that a suspect's lack of response to a "weeds and grass" stimulus proved that he was innocent of a 20-year-old crime is one of the most ludicrous examples I've ever heard of, guilty knowledge or not. Farrell also claims, BTW, in that supposed validating study in the Journal of Forensic Science, that the brain is a video camera which records everything. I'd imagine that some on this list might beg to disagree. For my comments on standard fingerprinting, see: Randerson, J., & Coghlan, A. (2004). Investigation: Forensic evidence in the dock. New Scientist January 28. On-line at: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994611 Cho, A. (2002) Fingerprinting doesn't hold up as a science in court. Science, 205, 418 Mnookin, J. (2003). Fingerprints: not a gold standard. Issues in Science and Technology, Fall., p. 47-- [should be eventually available at http://www.nap.edu/issues/ but not yet there] ___________________________________________________ Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm _______________________________________________ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
