<<This gets at the heart of what counts as individuation and how we justify it>>?
The short answer is that philosophy is/has been concerned with foundations; Why we do what we do. I'm sure you'll agree there's a real need for that kind of information in the discipline. If philosophy is concerned with foundations then, it's relevant. When you hear experts in the field call Friction Ridge Examination 'a leap of faith' on national tv, I'd say there's a problem.
What's my evidence of that? Well just a cursory glance at the industry shows that different relevant communities draw on philosophy in their arguments for/against forensic/friction ridge evidence.
- Frye (1923)
The origin and domain of reason, to which deduction belongs is philosophy. You can thank Rene Descartes for his contribution of deduction to the field of Philosophy. And it's an indication that the courts are concerned with how we arived at our claims; the foundation of our evidence."evidence could be admitted in court only if "the thing from which the deduction is made" is "sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs."
- Daubert (1993)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr
Which states in the decision:
And"Scientific methodology today is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is what distinguishes science from other fields of human inquiry." Green 645. See also C. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science 49 (1966) "
So in these two sentences we see that Carl Hempel, arguably best known for his Raven paradox in dealing with inductive knowledge claims and Karl Popper, who introduced falsification in direct response to Hempel and other members of the Vienna Circle (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vienna-circle/) who were propping up confirmation theories as the defacto method of science. Both Hempel and Popper were Philosophers."("[T]he statements constituting a scientific explanation must be capable of empirical test"); K. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge 37 (5th ed. 1989) ("[T]he criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability") (emphasis deleted)."
- Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd Edition (NAS)
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13163.html http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/fjc ... idence.pdf
We can see in the Third Section that again, the appeal to Philosophers and their contributions to what makes science a special enterprise and worthy of consideration in a trial.
How Good Science Works (authored by David Goodstein, Ph.D)
III. Theories of Science, 39
A. Francis Bacon’s Scientific Method, 39
B. Karl Popper’s Falsification Theory, 40
C. Thomas Kuhn’s Paradigm Shifts, 41
- Sandy L. Zabell, Ph.D., FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE (2005)
http://www.brooklaw.edu/intellectuallif ... 3F15B.ashx
Which is a quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein's TRACTATUS LOGICO-PHILOSOPHICUS (1921). Wittgenstein happens to be a Philosopher.Finally, the courts have a role to play as well. Limits should be placed on the testimony of fingerprint examiners (“100 percent positive identification”), so that their testimony reflects the true limits of their expertise. “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.”
- Ralph Haber, 90th International Educational Conference of the International Association for Identification, Dallas TX, August 7-13, 2005.
http://www.humanfactorsconsultants.com/ ... ions.shtml
Presentation: The Science of Individuation and Identification: Commonalities Across Eyewitness, Fingerprint, DNA and Other Identification Sciences
Individuation is also known as a criterion of identity or indiscernibility principle, which states that there can't be separate objects that have all their properties in common. (sound like something we claim when we make an ID?) Although it has its origins in Aristotle, comes back into play in modern times most notably with Arthur Schopenhauer and Gottfried Leibniz, both Philosophers.
- Simon Cole, Seventh International Conference on Forensic Inference & Statistics (2008)
http://socialecology.uci.edu/sites/soci ... adem22.pdf
His presentation: “Beyond Individualization, or How Wittgenstein Can Save Forensic
Identification,” Lausanne, Switzerland, August 21.
Again Wittgenstein who is a Philosopher.
- Jay Koehler, Individualization Claims In Forensic Science: Still Unwarranted (2010)
Extremely long link to paper
Which quotes Cole's reference to Wittgenstein in what he calls "The Individualization Fallacy"
- NIJ, Fingerprint Sourcebook Chapter 14 (Hey look, it's you Glenn!)
andSir Karl Popper (1902–1994) recognized the difficulty of
defining science. Popper, perhaps one of the most respected and widely known philosophers of science, separated science from nonscience with one simple principle: falsifiability
You go on to mention Hempel too, but obviously Popper and Hempel are references to the Daubert decision, but I liked that you mention Thornton's mention of Bas Van Frassen. I like Van Frassen's notion of an Inference to the Best Explanation. He's a Philosopher....Exactly what defines a law and exactly what defines a theory is contested within the philosophy of science. In fact, some philosophers of science (Van Fraassen, 1989, pp 180–181) believe that no laws exist at all. However, the majority of modern philosophers of science believe that laws exist and there are two popular competing definitions: systems and universals (Thornton, 2005).
- Impression & Pattern Evidence Symposium (2012)
Title: Recognize, Develop, and Implement: Building on our Foundations
I'll cut it off here for now making the case that it's relevant and let you determine what to ask next or if you want me to deal more with individuation which I mention briefly in #5.