An editorial defending bite mark analysis by eleven forensic odontologists violates canons of logic and fails to refute scientific criticism of bite mark analysis. The logical and scientific failings of Epidermis and Enamel are explained as a defensive reaction to criticism grounded in the cognitive biases, organizational deviance, and cognitive dissonance of the odontologist- authors. Mercier and Sperber’s evolutionary interactionist theory of reasoning is posited as a basis for understanding the editorial’s irrational resistance to scientific criticism. Similar defensive, erroneous and irrational resistance to scientific critiques of problematic forensic science methodologies is observed elsewhere, and has been supported by some forensic analysts and prosecutors. Courts, when assessing whether flawed forensics techniques should continue to be admissible evidence, should consider the kind of flawed reasoning used by defenders of such methods.