[brief] Even those working in the --- \(^1\)  Note that forensic examiners are not typically at fault—they are using the methods and skills they were trained to use, but the United States lacks widespread development of objective and standardized criteria in many forensic science disciplines.  same laboratory might approach the task of analyzing the same latent and suspect fingerprint pairing in different ways due to ambiguous or vague laboratory procedures or subjective aspects of fingerprint examination that are inherent to the task.  For instance, one study showed that latent print examiners varied considerably in terms of the number of corresponding features they thought were sufficient before forming an opinion that two fingerprints originated from the same person.  [...], [...], [...] & [...], *Measuring What Latent Fingerprint Examiners Consider Sufficient Information for Individualization Determinations*, 9 PLOS ONE 1 (2014).  Even when given a standard to work with (a minimum of 12 points), the number of points examiners identified and reported still varied.  *Id.*  The impression of forensic disciplines as scientific can be exacerbated by algorithmic and technological tools that forensic analysts use to speed up processing or perform tasks that a person cannot reasonably do (*e.g.*, use of algorithms to search large databases for similar looking candidates).  Sophisticated technology has a similar effect on lay individuals as do complicated sciences beyond the average person’s understanding—it is very persuasive.  People tend to believe that the use of algorithms, databases, and technology could only increase the accuracy and probative value of forensic evidence.  Again, though, just because an analysis was supported or facilitated by sophisticated technology does not make it correct or reliable.  In fact, the use of these technologies can increase some kinds of error.  For example, database searches make latent print examiners’ tasks much more difficult by providing them with a list of very similar looking prints, all of which could be from a suspect.  [...] & [...], *The use of technology in human expert domains: challenges and risks arising from the use of automated fingerprint identification systems in forensic science*, 9 L., Probability & Risk 47 (2010); see also [...], [...], [...] & [...], *The Impact of Human-Technology Cooperation and Distributed Cognition in Forensic Science: Biasing Effects of AFIS Contextual Information on Human Experts*, 57 J. Forensic Scis. 343 (2012).  [...] & [...], *Fingerprint error rate on close non-matches*, 66 J. Forensic Scis. 129 (2021).  Thus, most people—including forensic examiners themselves—may harbor their own, problematic misconceptions about foundational validity and objectivity associated with many forensic disciplines, including latent fingerprint examination which was used as an example here.  This lack of objectivity can mean that examiners are vulnerable to inconsistencies or mistakes during the examination process, but those tasked with judging fingerprint evidence are likely to harbor beliefs that fingerprint evidence, especially fingerprint evidence amplified by algorithmic or technological tools, has a strong scientific basis and objective means of comparing fingerprints.