According to its admirers, something called "statement analysis" is the new breakthrough in forensic science.
It is also sometimes called SCAN (scientific content analysis). It will replace the polygraph in law enforcement. Maury Povich will start using it on his show.
What is this miracle?
http://skepdic.com/statementanalysis.html
Statement (or content) analysis is the notion that there are linguistic give-aways to whether someone is telling the truth. And well, yes, as a matter of common sense and interrogatory experience this is true, the give-aways work as a matter of generality. There is nothing scientific about them.
After all, the usual give aways are well known to experienced frauds, who adapt their stories accordingly. "Don't add too much irrelevant detail to your story, they take that as suspicious," one con artist must commonly tell another. Here we stumble upon one of the great distinctions between the human and the physical sciences. Pluto doesn't care whether we call it a planet or not. Con artists definitely care that we should not call them con artists, and adapt their orbits accordingly.
That's a difference that messes with many attempts to apply "science" to psychology and social interactions.
Suppose a lot of con men learn that the "forensic scientists" are looking for those unnecessary details. They start making their lies leaner. Not only do they not get caught this way, but false positives increase as well. After all, what honest person does not include an irrelevant detail once in a while? Those details start to stand out as the real crooks get leaner. But then the SCAN types presumably will catch up to that and reverse their rule. And the teeter-totter will continue swinging.
That's a playground toy, not a science.
I'll let you follow the link to the Skeptic's Dictionary above for more information.
Comments
Post a Comment