No magic wand: the idealization of science in law
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Aug 28, 2006 - Law - 153 pages
Since 1993, Supreme Court precedent has asked judges to serve as gatekeepers to their expert witnesses, admitting only reliable scientific testimony. Lacking a strong background in science, however, some judges admit dubious scientific testimony packages by articulate practitioners, while others reject reliable evidence that is unreasonably portrayed as full of holes. Seeking a balance between undue deference and undeserved skepticism, Caudill and LaRue draw on the philosophy of science to help judges, juries, and advocates better understand its goals and limitations.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
On Judges Who Are Too Strict
On Judges Who Are Too Gullible
The Idealizations of Legal Scholars
3 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
33 Seton Hall admissibility analysis appellate panel applied arguments aspects of science believe Bruno Latour Cambrosio cigarette claim cognitive conclusions context courtroom critical culture Daubert Trilogy David Einstein's ence entific error rate ethical ethnographic evaluate example expert testimony expertise factors facts Farone Farone's focus Frye Galison's gatekeeping Hybritech idealization of science idealize science inquiry institutional interview Jonathan Potter judge's junk science jury Kumho Tire laboratory Latour and Woolgar lawyers litigation Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals methodology naturalistic opinion patent peer review Philip Morris philosophy plaintiff's practical pragmatic problem Professor question reason relevant reliability rhetoric of science rhetorical aspects science in law science studies science wars scientific enterprise scientific knowledge scientists social aspects social framework sociology of science standards Stephen Breyer supra note techniques TennCare testability testify theory tion trial court trial judge U.S. Supreme Court understand validity view of science