Criminology is often espoused, marketed, and proselytized in a broad scheme of seemingly mystical notions of maladaptive human behaviors. From the world of infotainment come the fantasies and fictions of writers and directors expressing dramatic portrayals in a range of creative motifs. To that storytelling inventiveness, sometimes exceptionally entertaining, yet often dull and boring with standard unrealistic stereotypes, mainstream interpretations devolve into a mix of erroneous interpretations. Social regression perpetrates illusions of lazy simplicity. In definitional terms, as to the field of study, a historical reference source cites “criminology” as the alleged “scientific study” of crime, as well as the causes and prevention as related aspects. As such, the diverse views of the various schools of thought draw on opinions from endeavors such as anthropology, biology, psychology, psychiatry, economics, and sociology. Often left out of such a pretentious list are the theological implications within the areas of study.

     For discussion and application, the primary focus remains the critical analysis of criminal behavior. Regardless, a singular point in the ongoing debates, arguments, and discourses relates to the issue of “scientific study”. Along this continuum travels the efficacy of “scientific validation”. To the perception of some investigators, the word “science” becomes a problem. To assert the application of the so-called “scientific methodology” from a traditional standpoint is one thing. Such a claim that one is either a “scientist” or is performing “science” is quite another. That is the format for inquiry, yet it does not fully expose and delineate the subsequent interpretations as scientific confirmation. Arguments ensue from a multitude of opposing sources that argue for or against claims made. When adherents to a philosophical school of thought espouse the “science” of what they do or go so far as to claim they are “scientists”, caution is warranted with regard to the efficacy of the conclusions drawn from speculative inquiries. Truth searches for evidence.

     For many, operating as experienced and skilled practitioners in the real world, hard science is usually distinguished as being based on a naturalistic process. In this realm, science is the work of those involved with astrophysics, biology, chemistry, geology, and so forth. By contrast, philosophy finds reflection in the spheres of criminology, psychology, sociology, and theology. Among those, theology has the unique opportunity to influence all of the “social studies” perspectives. In those efforts to reach the complex phenomenon of human behavior, some investigators are comfortable with calling these philosophical endeavors pseudoscience.

     As a subset, subdivision, or category under an umbrella, so to speak, criminal justice programs are found within the academic community. Where some speak of the “science” of criminology, versus the practical application of “criminal justice”, college-level instruction typically unfolds around philosophical perspectives. For example, a review of course curriculum for a generic undergraduate degree usually includes courses designed as a survey of the criminal justice system(s). Systems is preferred because one size does not fit all possibilities; there is not one “criminal justice system”, and size matters. Outside of a Hollywood film production, reality differs quite uniquely. Well, actually, while size or scale is critical, meanings of words are relevant. American so-called “criminal justice” is multifaceted, diverse, and intricate. Regardless, from a seminar course, or basic overview, to a theories course, or maybe several theory-laden courses, learners follow a prescribed, very superficial exposure to the nature of criminality.

     Further observation: in a standard-issue, off-the-shelf “academic” program, are claims of varying levels of so-called “research methods” courses. Again, scope and depth generally stay at an introductory level. Later, other stuff is tossed in the mix, like something called victimology. That is always fascinating in that the very claim of criminology is inherently about victimization by an assortment of the usual suspects. So, there exists a separate philosophical assertion about “victimology”. This, of course, claims another “scientific” study of becoming a victim. Added to that come courses called race and crime, crime and the media, introduction to psychology, as well as introduction to sociology, a law course or two, plus a review of crime in America. What usually follows is a class on corrections, juvenile delinquency, domestic violence, the environment, internship, and perhaps even a criminal investigation course. But wait, for the undergraduate major, the list did not include any hardcore “X-rated” science courses.

     For the vast majority of undergraduate coursework, laying the foundation for the alleged “scientific study” of crime, real science courses are woefully absent. The fields of forensic investigations, criminalistics, gunshot ballistics, anatomic decomposition, DNA analysis, etc., are cleverly avoided. Likewise, practitioner (real cops) driven instruction, like that found in a police academy, for instance, is also absent. Instead, academic-oriented non-practitioners teach history, philosophy, and previously cited works in a regurgitation of various ideological perspectives. Conspicuously not in attendance are subject matters related to anatomy and physiology, biology, chemistry, physics, forensic autopsy, and other subsets of the scientific community. At this point, back to the claim of alleged “scientific study”, where is that to be found in academia?

     These are fascinating adventures in academic gamesmanship. Especially if one opens the door for additional conjecture, relative to the issues of “peer review” in the “social studies” arena, a question arises. What does “peer review” mean as it relates to “social studies”? Outside the hard science spectrum, in the dominion of philosophical endeavors, who are the alleged “peers” in terms of the efficacy of philosophical conjecture? It is merely an exercise in academic chess moves. Or, do such measures provide faculty with further means to do additional research for their own projects? But wait, this could be the tip of the academic pyramid. Such instigations borrowed from the real sciences provide the veneer of furthering the perpetrations of pretending to be a science. Then again, the “academic review” enhances the role of the critic, whereby participants add such things to their vita. And, if, say, in nuclear physics, for instance, peer review attempts replication of an atomic experiment, then in the philosophical realm one can replicate another’s research. Hold on a second; there is no comparison whatsoever in that analogy. 

     So, what does all that mean in the real world of life and death reality? Basically, what it means here is that philosophy transforms into a “science”, as desired by many adherents from one school of thought to another; in that craving for their ideological perspective to become “a real science”, the efficacy of truthful discovery becomes blurred by subjective validation. Additionally, in the dominions of academia, a number of criminologists are not unlike actors in the splendid 1990s television show called The X-Files. For them, the truth is out there, and they desperately want to believe that which defies scientific authenticity. While fiction is fun, reality is harsh. They want to believe they are some kind of “philosopher scientist” embracing the “truth” of their anecdotal reference sources, and the redundancy of perpetual “works cited”.

     Regardless of whether or not hope springs eternal, the fear and loathing of being challenged, tested, and called upon to prove one thing or another by scientific validation is scary. However, as bias influences conclusions, and the observer influences observation, where design determines outcome, the proof remains elusive. Thus, opinions at best, reinforced by shadowy rumors, gossip, and hunches, close ranks in the communion of “peer review” and so forth. Nevertheless, as to the previously mentioned undergraduate courses in criminology, for the typical baccalaureate, as several institutions can attest, the degree granted is usually a “bachelor of arts”. That is a curious admission as to the efficacy of the “scientific” issue. Why not a “bachelor of science”? After all, a cursory check of the dictionary says a “B.A.” is awarded for passing courses in the “humanities”. Which, in turn, begs the question: what are the “humanities”?

     Well then, the pseudoscience adventure continues, as the “humanities” is the study of human constructs as opposed to natural processes or the constructs of nature, as in biology, etc. One online dictionary delineates humanities from science by stating that studies focus on literature, art, philosophy, and culture. Within that context, criminology resides among those classics in ideological expressions. As to a scientific study of crime and criminality, such is the stretch of the meaning of “scientific”. Making that claim, the assertion demands explanation by virtue of its base assumptions. For some, as those among the claimants of the classical school of criminology, the philosophical implications are necessarily crucial. In all probability, there is a minority of viewpoints that accept that criminology is essentially a pseudoscience, for the reality of the theoretical constructs is not only that, but likewise a philosophical adventure.

     As a philosophy of the study of illicit behaviors, criminology becomes an expression of human investigative processes whereby experience, evolved skill set, and artful creative thinking become an advanced art form. Not a science by any stretch of the imagination. Science is found in the crime lab. That is where technicians with science degrees, as well as specialization in particular forensic matters, apply real scientific analysis. Unless an agency is fortunate enough to hire a Ph.D. in physics, for example, and promote them to detective status, most investigative issues are initially the work of philosophical practitioners. To assert otherwise is to provoke debatable frames of reference. Foolishness comes to mind, especially in speculative matters regarding the “why” question. And, there it is, an artistic venture of creativity to coordinate the real scientists, from crime scene to crime lab, to expose the smoking gun of culpability.

     As to the proverbial “why” inquiry, from the rubric of who, what, where, when, why, and how (i.e., 5WH), the “why” is the tough one. Who knows? That is because it gets complicated. Where ideological framework influences investigations, caution is always warranted regarding the “cause-effect” phenomenon. Instead, what does the evidence show? For those desiring to get “inside the criminal mind”, how do you get inside something that does not exist? Entering the inquiry at hand comes the “profiler”. Worse yet, the academic with no police experience, who wants to help, adds to the mounting misinformation and misdirection. Even worse and more sinister is the college professor who needs to make a few extra bucks in his or her blog or vlog. In social media, such self-serving notions of non-practitioners confuse the public with all manner of myth and magic. Meanwhile, back in academia, where most proselytes and non-practitioners never venture from the classroom, the theoretical conjecture spreads like a virus.

     In the world of the real practitioner criminologist, the law enforcement realm, it is extremely important to be very savvy, creative, and articulate in the criminological perspective. Stupidity cannot be tolerated. And here, stupidity is taken to suggest the dull and boring spew of foolish conjectures. Wise maturation, steeped in dedicated self-evolving differentiations, is essential to an ascendance to higher levels of professional enlightenment. Competitively, all manner of “life forms” (people), especially those in a disparate, amative necessity of self-validation, relish in telling law enforcement how to do their job. From academicians to politicians, and proselytes and pundits in between, the theoreticians are everywhere and regurgitate their psychobabble by whatever means. For the practitioner, classical criminology is often a more relevant perspective. While bias often permeates queries, the inquirer labors diligently to ensure he or she remains a true professional. To find the evidence of proof, ethics dictate the reality of authenticity.

     Mere opinion, rumor, gossip, alleged “peer review”, and even various “schools of thought” are insufficient in the efficacy of provability in the substantiation of solvability factors. Where one wonders at “motive, means, and opportunity”, the standard template of a Hollywood script, others ponder the mystery of malice aforethought, premeditation, and intent. Energized by the adventure of being on the outside looking in, considering evidentiary artifacts of organic complicity, and dealing with the rushed confusion of urban urgency, experience provokes knowledge. In one law enforcement training manual on the subject of basic investigations, the author notes the necessity of utilizing the wisdom of repetitive experience. For that competence, the application of the “mental magic” capitalizes on the cultivated insight. For the savvy inquirer, some observe the necessity for a keen sense of cynicism regarding human behavior.

     Especially so is the circumspection regarding those non-practitioners who think they know the art and craft of law enforcement investigations. And, of the wannabes, will go so far in their “non-expertise” to claim “expert analysis” of antisocial behaviors. Of the social media expanse of opined salaciousness, blogs and vlogs are rife with an abundance of con artistry. For so many opinions, so little is known regarding the complex nature of human behavior and the thinking behind it. Nonetheless, scientific validity demands proof regardless of speculative notions spinning within the “social studies” arena. Fascination continues, as one science publication reports on the relevance of “rational choice theory”, aka the classical school of criminology. Again, pseudoscience mingling with real science interactivity. However, fortunately, the discussion points toward the issue as a theoretical concept within a realm of philosophy.

     As to the metaphysics of conjecture masquerading as some notion of “scientific inquiry”, movies, television, and other venues of “tubing streams” typically portray the “X-Files” of simplistic superficiality. It’s modern-day snake oil sales pretending to be relevant, so long as the ratings hold up, and the advertising satisfies the amative interests. Not to forget, of course, the academicians with no field experience claiming expertise in criminal behavior. Regurgitations of aforementioned “peer review’ irrelevancy, and citations of opined gossip, later claim “extensive research”. Or, as one tubist ideologue from a school of thought, reflecting the money making ventures of psychology, stated “it’s in the science”. What science? The science of make believe? Myth, magic, and poorly constructed metaphor? In one depiction of attempting to apply a scientific allusion to “profiling criminal minds”, a television series involving so called serial killers claims case solutions by way of mystical illusions. Viewers must realize it’s called fiction.

     Nonetheless, the episodes reflect highly sensual storytelling, laced with eerily seductive music and cunningly enticing visual allure. While detectives and crime scene techs work to unravel the crimes by way of evidence, non-police theoreticians flock to the murders to reveal the hidden secrets in the “minds” of the unknown killers. Meanwhile, the undertone of hard-working detectives and criminalists, who later actually solve the crimes, is portrayed with slight mention. Not unlike their internet “vlogging” wannabes, the armchair “criminologist”, with backgrounds in psychology and psychiatry, pontificate arrogantly as to the motives, intentions, and all manner of psychobabble regarding the murderers. In one television series, although entertaining, to say the least, how many psychiatrists does it take to really foul up a criminal investigation? In two seasons, about half a dozen or so. While fictional storytelling is one thing, the real world of criminology is quite another. Scarily, the public sometimes does not know the difference.

     Disturbingly, some viewers indulge in such showmanship and then hope they are watching a documentary about crime. Unfortunately, real-world evidentiary investigative processes suffer the malaise of what some call “truth decay”. In academia, worse yet, professorial types sometimes allow such superficiality of viewpoints, science fiction, to pass as a probable reality. In illogical regressions away from truthful and evidence-driven factuality, demarcations between fact and fiction blur. The degradation succumbs to dangerous fallacies of inference, as make-believe fantasizes the hastily drawn conclusions of its self-destruction. At the same time, a broader perspective on human exploitation and its multidimensional complexity draws attention to the number of variations in con artistry. Academia is rife with all manner of specious conjecture.

     In the postmodern context of alleged investigatory studies, overpopulated by the pious and pompous, opinion labors to devalue the efficacious vitality of evidentiary proof. Much is boasted about the umbrella field of criminology. Multidisciplinary with a multitude of facets, there is no singular ideology that fully explains human behavior. Especially in regard to maladaptive or illicit behaviors, no “single bullet theory” explains it all. As one researcher points out, on behalf of governmentally sponsored research, pseudoscience refers to that which is working very hard to have the “appearance of science”. Yet, in the overall critique of such efforts, the fundamental basis of the substance of science, and the authenticity of scientific validation, is woefully lacking. In 2008, a paper on the criminal justice system directed attention to the artifice of “scientific superficiality” in attempting to portray the trappings of science.

     From a philosophical perspective in the UK, one criminological philosopher espouses this delineation. Asserting the metaphysical vortex of many fields, intersecting at various points in time, criminology is an ideological “rendezvous” of many academic disciplines. Arguing the philosophical advantage, contention ensues relative to an essential necessity for theoretical constructs. In which real science is not a primary ingredient, except for the organic and materialistic necessity of crime scene evidence. Diverting attention to the “social studies arena” and the academic environment, a significant degree of philosophy is apparent. From politics to theology, as well as historical reference points, the entirety of core degree requirements center around speculative studies. Typically, college courses in so-called “criminal justice”, or criminology, or even some other name, focus attention on theories.

     As such, outside the “general education requirements” for undergraduate credits (e.g., biology, chemistry, math, etc.), science courses are notoriously absent. Courses like crime and justice, introduction to the criminal justice system, theories of crime, and so forth are typical. By contrast, courses such as forensic biology, crime scene forensics, introduction to autopsies, anatomy and physiology, DNA analysis, forensic odontology, etc., are seldom on the academic requirements list. Instead, the main thrust of course content is of an historical nature, with some statistical information thrown in, along with a diversity of behavioral opinions. As a side note, if one school of thought is absolutely correct, then why are there so many “absolutely correct” schools of thought? The answer is that everyone has a point of view as to why people behave the way they do. In terms of investigative efforts, relative to the field of criminology, there is a high degree of uncertainty, no matter how much speculative probability biases the perspective.