--
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Psychology Department
Utica College of Syracuse University
1600 Burrstone Rd.
Utica, NY 13502
(315) 792-3171
"To teach is to learn twice". - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
Dear Steven Specht:
Your question is a good one, and it is thoroughly dealt with in my
experimental procedures and scientific writings. A few sound bites edited by a
TV producer out of eight hours of interviews is not an adequate representation
of any scientific technology. If you're interested in forming an informed
opinion, I'd suggest you read the Harrington Report and Supplement and the
paper Sharon Smith of the FBI and I are publishing in the Journal of Forensic
sciences. I've attached them to this amail, or you can download them from my
web site, www.BrainWaveScience.com.
If my approach were anywhere as as na~ve and foolish as the approach you
mistakenly attribute to me in you email, I would not have gotten 100% accurate
results in over 150 cases. There is considerable lively interchange between
cognitive psychophysiologists such as myself regarding various scientific and
non-scientific issues, and we don't always agree, but it is fair to say that
there is universal agreement among the legitimate experts in my field that what
my colleagues and I do is scientifically sound and highly accurate. There is
room for disagreement as far as what the implications of this are for the world
of criminal investigations or for any particular legal case, and I think this
kind of discussion is healthy -- when it is based in thorough perusal of the
relevant scientific scientific writings.
If you really want "to be fair," you'll forward this email to the people you
sent your email to, give them the opportunity to look at my data and writings,
and let them decide for themselves. This could be an interesting exercise in
scientific and intellectual discrimination.
Regards,
Dr. Larry Farwell
>> Dear Dr. Farwell,
>> To be fair, I thought I'd send you a copy of an e-mail I sent to our
>> teaching of psychology list (below). I wish you'd be more scientific and
>> ethical in your approach.
>> Dear TIPSters,
>> At one point during the Brain Fingerprinting segment on 60 minutes, the
>> fact that the subject did not respond to the stimulus "weeds and grass"
>> was used as evidence for the suspect's innocence. The argument went
>> something like this: since the assailant would have had to run through
>> "weeds and grass" when fleeing the crime scene; and since this
>> experience would have been permanently in the memory of the criminal;
>> then by NOT responding, the suspect is "proven" at the "99.99% level"
>> (their words) to be innocent.
>> Besides the obvious logical flaws and concerns about null results (which
>> I would expect my intro. exp. psych. students to be able to identify),
>> the logic assumes that the suspect had never had any other experience
>> with running through "weeds and grass".
>> I would like to conduct an informal poll... How many TIPSters have some
>> memory of having, at some time in their lives, run through "weeds and
>> grass"? I suspect that 99.99% of respondents should respond to that
>> stimulus? If you had this memory, would you have been presumed to be
>> gulity. The implications are extremely frightening (You might
>> say..."arresting").
>> Another sad part of it is that I bet that guy has more grant money than
>> most of us.
>> And we wonder why we have trouble with students thinking critically in
>> class. It's certainly an up-hill battle isn't it?
>> Happy Holidays (are coming),
>> -S
>> p.s. I would bet that lots of criminals (and non-criminals) would
>> respond to "'weed' and 'grass'" for other reasons as well...
>> --
>>
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>> ||
>> Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.
>> Associate Professor of Psychology
>> Psychology Department
>> Utica College of Syracuse University
>> 1600 Burrstone Rd.
>> Utica, NY 13502
>> (315) 792-3171
>> "To teach is to learn twice". - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
FBILFSmithAsPubFigs004.doc
HarringtonSupplement004figs.doc
HarringtonTechReport005.doc
