Falsifiability as a demarcation criterion between pseudoscience (graphology) and forensic discipline (handwriting examination)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71112/fb7r7658Keywords:
graphology, forensic handwriting examination, demarcation problem, expert evidence, cognitive bias.Abstract
The persistent confusion between graphology (psychological profiling) and forensic handwriting examination constitutes a problem of evidentiary rationality and expert knowledge governance in Hispanic legal systems. Through a critical integrative review with a multidisciplinary approach, this study demarcates both practices epistemologically, demonstrating that graphology operates as a non-falsifiable projective system with null predictive validity (r ≈ .15), whereas forensic handwriting examination, though imperfect, is empirically controllable (error rates ~3.1%) and methodologically transparent. Jurisprudential analysis reveals ambiguous judicial reception in Mexico and Spain, where terminological synonymy hinders specific epistemological filters. It is concluded that rigorous conceptual delimitation, mandatory use of standardized terminology, and implementation of Daubert-type mechanisms constitute ethical-legal requirements to safeguard documentary evidence integrity and reduce cognitive biases in judicial valuation.
Downloads
References
ASTM International. (2009). Standard guide for scope of work of forensic document examiners (ASTM E444-09; withdrawn 2018). https://www.astm.org/e0444-09.html
Australasian Society of Forensic Document Examiners Inc. [ASFDE]. (2023). Statement on error rates associated with handwriting and signature examinations. https://asfdeinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Error-rate-statement-FINAL.pdf
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bunge, M. (1983). La ciencia, su método y su filosofía (2.ª ed.). Siglo XXI Editores.
Código Nacional de Procedimientos Penales [CNPP]. (2025). Cámara de Diputados del H. Congreso de la Unión; última reforma publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 28 de noviembre de 2025. https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/CNPP.pdf
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-102.ZO.html
Driver, R. W., Buckley, M. R., & Frink, D. D. (1996). Should we write off graphology? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 4(2), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.1996.tb00062.x
Dror, I. E. (2020). Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: Six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Analytical Chemistry, 92(12), 7998–8004. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704
European Network of Forensic Science Institutes, Documents Working Group. (2022). Best practice manual for the forensic examination of handwriting (4th ed.). ENFSI. https://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/BPM-Handwriting-Ed.-4.pdf
Hansson, S. O. (2017). Science and pseudo-science. En E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2017 ed.). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/pseudo-science/
Hicklin, R. A., Eisenhart, L., Richetelli, N., Miller, M. D., Belcastro, P., Burkes, T. M., Parks, C. L., Smith, M. A., Buscaglia, J., Peters, E. M., Perlman, R. S., Abonamah, J. V., & Eckenrode, B. A. (2022). Accuracy and reliability of forensic handwriting comparisons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(32), e2119944119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119944119
Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
Kukucka, J., & Kassin, S. M. (2014). ¿Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias. Law and Human Behavior, 38(3), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000066
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1709.ZS.html
Ley 1/2000, de 7 de enero, de Enjuiciamiento Civil [LEC]. (2000). Boletín Oficial del Estado, núm. 7, 8 de enero de 2000. https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2000-323
Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal [LECrim]. (1882). Real Decreto de 14 de septiembre de 1882 por el que se aprueba la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal. Boletín Oficial del Estado. https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1882-6036
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2021). Forensic handwriting examination and human factors: Improving the practice through a systems approach (NISTIR 8282r1). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8282r1
National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12589
Neter, E., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1989). The predictive validity of graphological inferences: A meta-analytic approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(7), 737–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869%2889%2990120-7
Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science. (2022). Standard for the expression of conclusions in forensic document examination (OSAC 2022-S-0034, draft standard). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://www.nist.gov/document/osac-2022-s-0034-standard-expression-conclusions-forensic-document-examinationdraft-osac
Pigliucci, M. (2013). The demarcation problem: A (proper) primer. Philosophy & Theory in Biology, 5, e402. https://doi.org/10.3998/ptb.6959004.0005.002
Popper, K. R. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery (Routledge Classics ed.). Routledge. (Obra original publicada en 1959)
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2016). Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Executive Office of the President of the United States. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf
Schmidt, F. L., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2004). A counterintuitive hypothesis about employment interview validity and some supporting evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.553
Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination. (2013). Standard terminology for expressing conclusions of forensic document examiners (SWGDOC Standard). https://www.swgdoc.org/documents/SWGDOC%20Standard%20Terminology%20for%20Expressing%20Conclusions%20of%20Forensic%20Document%20Examiners%20150114.pdf
Sita, J., Found, B., & Rogers, D. K. (2002). Forensic handwriting examiners' expertise for signature comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47(5), 1117–1124. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS15521J
Stoel, R. D., Dror, I. E., & Miller, L. S. (2014). Bias among forensic document examiners: Still a need for procedural changes. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2013.797026
Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación. (2016). Amparo directo en revisión 5382/2016. Secretaría de Actas y Oficialía Mayor de la SCJN. https://www.scjn.gob.mx/sites/default/files/listas/documento_dos/2017-08/ADR-5382-2016-170822.pdf
Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación. (2022). Manual de prueba pericial: Lineamientos para una valoración racional. Dirección General de Derechos Humanos. https://www.scjn.gob.mx/derechos-humanos/
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Alfredo García Anaya (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
