David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Law and Philosophy 9 (2):115 - 156 (1990)
Many legal disputes turn on scientific, especially statistical, evidence. Traditionally scientists have accepted only that statistical evidence which satisfies a 95 percent (or 99 percent) rule — that is, only evidence which has less than five percent (or one percent) probability of resulting from chance.The rationale for this rule is the reluctance of scientists to accept anything less than the best-supported new knowledge. The rule reflects the internal needs of scientific practice. However, when uncritically adopted as a rule for admitting legal evidence, the seemingly innocuous 95 percent rule distorts the balance of interests historically protected by the legal system. In particular, plaintiffs in toxic tort and employment discrimination suits are effectively held to a heavier burden of proof in showing that their injuries were more probably than not caused by the defendant's actions. The result is that too many victims of toxic torts or employment discrimination cannot win legal redress for their injuries.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Colleen Murphy & Paolo Gardoni (2011). Evaluating the Source of the Risks Associated with Natural Events. Res Publica 17 (2):125-140.
Similar books and articles
John Lemons, Kristin Shrader-Frechette & Carl Cranor (1997). The Precautionary Principle: Scientific Uncertainty and Type I and Type II Errors. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 2 (2):207-236.
Richard Scheines, Expert Statistical Testimony and Epidemiological Evidence: The Toxic Effects of Lead Exposure on Children.
Susan Haack (2008). Proving Causation: The Holism of Warrant and the Atomism of Daubert. Journal of Health and Biomedical Law 4:253-289.
Frederick Schauer (2008). In Defense of Rule-Based Evidence Law – and Epistemology Too. Episteme 5 (3):pp. 295-305.
Susan Haack (2009). Irreconcilable Differences? The Troubled Marriage of Science and Law. Law and Contemporary Problems 72 (1).
Salvatore Ruggieri, Dino Pedreschi & Franco Turini (2010). Integrating Induction and Deduction for Finding Evidence of Discrimination. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (1):1-43.
Carl F. Cranor (2005). The Science Veil Over Tort Law Policy: How Should Scientific Evidence Be Utilized in Toxic Tort Law? [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 24 (2):139 - 210.
Mark Parascandola (1996). Evidence and Association: Epistemic Confusion in Toxic Tort Law. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):176.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #195,188 of 1,790,511 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #270,682 of 1,790,511 )
How can I increase my downloads?