Download This PaperThe Bite Mark Dentists and the Counterattack on Forensic Science Reform
Albany Law Review 83(3), 749-829
81 Pages Posted: 9 Jun 2020 Last revised: 17 Oct 2020
Date Written: May 4, 2020
Abstract
An editorial defending bite mark analysis by eleven forensic odontologists violates canons of logic and fails to refute scientific criticism of bite mark analysis. The logical and scientific failings of Epidermis and Enamel are explained as a defensive reaction to criticism grounded in the cognitive biases, organizational deviance, and cognitive dissonance of the odontologist- authors. Mercier and Sperber’s evolutionary interactionist theory of reasoning is posited as a basis for understanding the editorial’s irrational resistance to scientific criticism. Similar defensive, erroneous and irrational resistance to scientific critiques of problematic forensic science methodologies is observed elsewhere, and has been supported by some forensic analysts and prosecutors. Courts, when assessing whether flawed forensics techniques should continue to be admissible evidence, should consider the kind of flawed reasoning used by defenders of such methods.
Keywords: forensic science, bite mark analysis, wrongful convictions, cognitive bias, cognitive dissonance
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation