Episteme 5 (3):pp. 253-265 (2008)
|Abstract||The epistemological analysis offered in this paper reveals that a combination of pieces of evidence, none of them sufficient by itself to warrant a causal conclusion to the legally required degree of proof, may do so jointly. The legal analysis offered here, interlocking with this, reveals that Daubert’s requirement that courts screen each item of scientific expert testimony for reliability can actually impede the process of arriving at the conclusion most warranted by the evidence proffered|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nancy Cartwright (2006). Well‐Ordered Science: Evidence for Use. Philosophy of Science 73 (5):981-990.
Frederick Schauer (2008). In Defense of Rule-Based Evidence Law – and Epistemology Too. Episteme 5 (3):pp. 295-305.
Susan Haack (2008). Of Truth, in Science and in Law. Brooklyn Law Review 73 (2).
Alex Stein (2005). Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.
Catherine Z. Elgin (2002). Take It From Me. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (2):291-308.
Yuval Avnur (2011). An Old Problem for the New Rationalism. Synthese 183 (2):175-185.
Catherine Z. Elgin (2002). Take It From Me: The Epistemological Status of Testimony. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (2):291-308.
Simon A. Cole, Toward Evidence-Based Evidence: Supporting Forensic Knowledge Claims in the Post-Daubert Era.
Susan Haack (2008). Proving Causation: The Holism of Warrant and the Atomism of Daubert. Journal of Health and Biomedical Law 4:253-289.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads34 ( #35,297 of 549,014 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,272 of 549,014 )
How can I increase my downloads?