Science and Pseudoscience in Law Enforcement

Abstract

Pseudoscience and questionable science are largely neglected problems in police and other law enforcement work. In this primer, the authors delineate the key differences between science and pseudoscience, presenting 10 probabilistic indicators or warning signs, such as lack of falsifiability, absence of safeguards against confirmation bias, and lack of self-correction, that can help consumers of the police literature to distinguish scientific from pseudoscientific claims. Each of these warning signs is illustrated with an example from law enforcement. By attending to the differences between scientific and pseudoscientific assertions, police officers and other law enforcement officials can minimize their risk of errors and make better real-world decisions.

La synergologie, une lecture pseudoscientifique du langage corporel

“…De plus, un tel argument s'apparente davantage au renversement du fardeau de la preuve, un procédé utilisé pour tenter de justifier certaines approches pseudoscientifiques (Lilienfeld et Landfield, 2008). Ainsi, les tenants de la synergologie oublient que le fardeau de la preuve repose sur le chercheur qui avance une théorie.…”

“…D'ailleurs, dans deux billets de blogue parus à la suite de la série de textes publiée dans La Presse, les tenants de la synergologie se sont également positionnés publiquement comme des victimes de « coups bas » 9 et de « chasses-gardées » 10 . En outre, étant donné que la promotion des approches pseudoscientifiques passe souvent par la persuasion plutôt que par des expérimentations scientifiques rigoureuses et des débats ouverts (Lilienfeld et Landfield, 2008), l'appel aux passions, aux valeurs et aux émotions du grand public constitue un autre procédé parfois employé pour tenter de justifier certaines approches pseudoscientifiques.…”

Psychological science’s replicability crisis and what it means for science in the courtroom

“…These questions are generally beyond the scope of this Essay, which is a more discrete inquiry into the failure of specific scientific safeguards and practices, how such failures can lead to findings that are difficult to replicate, and how this should inform law's treatment of scientific evidence. This conceptualization of the scientific method is perhaps best encapsulated by a view that discriminates between good and bad science as differences in degree, rather than kind (Lilienfeld & Landfield, 2008;Lilienfeld, Lynn, & Lohr, 2003). In fact, following from this view, Lilienfeld and Landfield's (2008) indicia of pseudoscience (as compared to science) have interesting reflections in the sources of the replicability crisis.…”

“…This conceptualization of the scientific method is perhaps best encapsulated by a view that discriminates between good and bad science as differences in degree, rather than kind (Lilienfeld & Landfield, 2008;Lilienfeld, Lynn, & Lohr, 2003). In fact, following from this view, Lilienfeld and Landfield's (2008) indicia of pseudoscience (as compared to science) have interesting reflections in the sources of the replicability crisis. For instance, just as pseudoscience often seeks to evade peer review (Lilienfeld, Lynn, & Lohr, 2003, p. 6), we shall see that impoverished peer review helped contribute to the replicability crisis.…”

“…Openness regarding methodology and procedure is hallmark of good science (Lilienfeld & Landfield, 2008). More specifically, such consideration would help screen out research containing QRPs.…”