Nothing is infallible. That doesn't mean it isn't worth studying and understanding. Also, until a more effective form of identification becomes available it's most likely not going anywhere...
Its just when you base an entire system on a flawed premise and less than reliable means of executing that system it calls into question then entire institution. The whole episode of that Adam Ruins Everything is on Netflix and is quite enlightening. Reminds me of the fact that there has been no empirical evidence supporting flossing as necessary for dental hygiene and yet almost every dentist will tell you to floss. All credible studies done on the matter have produced results that neither confirm nor deny that flossing has any benefits. Or how about that horrible humans only use 10% of their brain myth, which is based entirely on a mistranslated German paper and yet everyone "knows" this and many believe it's true.
@scatmandigo The premise we assumed and use for the legal system is that no fingerprint is identical and therefore can be used to accurately identify a culprit. However, there is no evidence to support that claim in fact just the opposite is true. It's even worse that the method used to identify fingerprints is incredibly vague and is literally the best guess of the a "person" not computer as to whether it matches.
I watched the video. It’s very misleading as many of that dude’s videos are. Yes, fingerprints can be indistinguishable in imperfect circumstances. The case that he mentioned about the US guy arrested for a Spanish crime because their fingerprints matched. He failed to mention that the US guy’s print matched the low quality print found at a crime scene but once they got the right guy and compared his fingerprints to the US guy they didn’t match. It was a question of resolution: they both matched the crime scene but not each other. That’s a reason people think retinal scans are better. Their quality is more consistent.
As for your second point, computers can compare fingerprints very accurately. That’s how I unlock my phone.
Yes but the whole point is that most cases are imperfect in their circumstances. It's only rarely that you get a good clear fingerprint which is why they have to default back to human operators instead of machine. You're phone had you swipe or press multiple times on the same finger in order to get a good print which it can then match too. That's really not an option for fingerprints found at a scene. I'm not disagreeing that you couldn't use a fingerprint to help point you in the right direction but we, and by we I mean most legal systems, place too much importance on their supposed infallibility. DNA is a much much better method of identifying a culprit but it has the same limitations, if not the same questionable results, as fingerprinting in that it may or may not be left at the scene of a crime. If they had gone on DNA evidence instead of fingerprints that guy wouldn't even have come up as person of interest let alone arrested like he was.
Great argument! I feel the need to point out that DNA has limitations too but that's based solely on the fact that we have not yet created a database to log the DNA of every person in the world. Most of the time when DNA "matches" are made, it's bc the government already has a sample of DNA from a repeat offender. If it's the criminal's first offense, they won't be in the database. Check out this article explaining why DNA tests aren't 100% foolproof https://www.popsci.com/dna-evidence-not-foolproof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM1QgwaKv4s
As for your second point, computers can compare fingerprints very accurately. That’s how I unlock my phone.