Measuring Numerical Value vs. Assessed Properties of Friction Ridge Features
ACE-V demonstrates that conclusions of Individualization are not based strictly upon the 'Value' of the friction ridge formations (i.e.: quantity of minutiae or their 'X,Y,Z' coordinates). Were Individualization based upon 'Value', then every AFIS response would be a true and accurate 'hit'.
Rather, ACE-V demonstrates that individualization are consistently and reliably effected based upon A.) the 'Properties' of the friction ridge formations (i.e.: clarity, type, shape, location, orientation, spatial relationships), in conjunction with, B.) the 'Attributes' of the friction ridge formations (i.e.: distortion influences, assessment vis-a-vis tolerance levels).
This distinction is why critics of Friction Ridge Identification science seem to have difficulty in accepting our methodology as valid and reliable. Other branches of science can reduce their subjects into numbers, mathematical formula and charts based upon the 'Value' they can measure for the subjects. This is the standard procedure for demonstrating proof that a methodology works (as has been done with DNA).
Friction Ridge Identification science has known for years that were we to employ a methodology based upon numerical values assigned to friction ridge formations, such a methodology would result in inconsistent and unreliable individualization. Instead, study and research conducted by Friction Ridge Identification science has demonstrated that a reliable and valid Friction Ridge Identification methodology must reduce the friction ridge formations (subjects) into an analysis, comparison and evaluation based upon the 'Properties' and their assigned 'Attributes' that we can assess for the friction ridge features (see the frame at left).
ACE-V methodology deals with our subject based upon assessed properties and attributes, rather than their measured value. This doesn't render our science 'subjective' as our critics would claim. To answer our critics, we 'choose' not to reduce our subject into numerical values, rather than we 'cannot' do so. We 'choose' to reduce our subject into its properties and attributes, thus allowing our ACE-V methodology to apply and embody all the principles and standards of the Scientific Method.
The use of numerical values to describe the subject of a science doesn't by itself make a science objective. The faithful execution of a tested and proven methodology (such as ACE-V) is what renders a science objective.
Rather, ACE-V demonstrates that individualization are consistently and reliably effected based upon A.) the 'Properties' of the friction ridge formations (i.e.: clarity, type, shape, location, orientation, spatial relationships), in conjunction with, B.) the 'Attributes' of the friction ridge formations (i.e.: distortion influences, assessment vis-a-vis tolerance levels).
This distinction is why critics of Friction Ridge Identification science seem to have difficulty in accepting our methodology as valid and reliable. Other branches of science can reduce their subjects into numbers, mathematical formula and charts based upon the 'Value' they can measure for the subjects. This is the standard procedure for demonstrating proof that a methodology works (as has been done with DNA).
Friction Ridge Identification science has known for years that were we to employ a methodology based upon numerical values assigned to friction ridge formations, such a methodology would result in inconsistent and unreliable individualization. Instead, study and research conducted by Friction Ridge Identification science has demonstrated that a reliable and valid Friction Ridge Identification methodology must reduce the friction ridge formations (subjects) into an analysis, comparison and evaluation based upon the 'Properties' and their assigned 'Attributes' that we can assess for the friction ridge features (see the frame at left).
ACE-V methodology deals with our subject based upon assessed properties and attributes, rather than their measured value. This doesn't render our science 'subjective' as our critics would claim. To answer our critics, we 'choose' not to reduce our subject into numerical values, rather than we 'cannot' do so. We 'choose' to reduce our subject into its properties and attributes, thus allowing our ACE-V methodology to apply and embody all the principles and standards of the Scientific Method.
The use of numerical values to describe the subject of a science doesn't by itself make a science objective. The faithful execution of a tested and proven methodology (such as ACE-V) is what renders a science objective.