Remember tongue identification, which I discussed in 2023? Supposedly you can identify people based upon the shape and texture of their tongues. Unfortunately for the proponents, I don’t know that this has ever been tested with a subject size greater than 20 participants.
But that doesn’t stop people from talking about tongue identification as established fact.
A blog post (I won’t link to it) makes statements such as this:
The human tongue…has unique features that are different for each person.
Again without a shred of evidence.
Of course, the same blog post also praises bite mark analysis as an established identification method. Ignoring what scientists say:
“A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification….An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony….This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification—highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications—highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law’s difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.”
So don’t get all excited about tongue identification just yet.
Bredemarket 