David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 32:20-35 (2008)
Rehearing Daubert on remand from the Supreme Court, Judge Kozinski introduced a fifth "Daubert factor" of his own: that expert testimony is based on "litigation-driven science" is an indication that it is unreliable. This article explores the role this factor has played in courts' handling of scientific testimony, clears up an ambiguity in "litigation-driven" and some uncertainties in "reliable," and assesses the reasons courts have given for reading such research with suspicion. This analysis reveals that research that is litigation-driven in the stronger of the two senses distinguished is inherently less likely to be evidentially reliable; but also that it is so hard to determine whether research is litigation-driven in this strong sense that this new Daubert factor is not as helpful as Judge Kozinski imagined.
|Keywords||Science Litigation Evidence|
|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
Susan Haack (2012). The Embedded Epistemologist: Dispatches From the Legal Front. Ratio Juris 25 (2):206-235.
Douglas Walton & Nanning Zhang (2013). The Epistemology of Scientific Evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (2):173-219.
Similar books and articles
Timothy D. Lytton (2004). Using Litigation to Make Public Health Policy: Theoretical and Empirical Challenges in Assessing Product Liability, Tobacco, and Gun Litigation. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32 (4):556-564.
Jan Tullberg (2006). Excesses of Responsibility? – Reconsidering Company Liability. Journal of Business Ethics 64 (1):69 - 81.
Scott Paetty, Classless Not Clueless: A Comparison of Case Management Mechanisms for Non-Class-Based Complex Litigation in California and Federal Courts.
Go Eguchi & Laurence L. Leff (2002). Rule-Based XML. Artificial Intelligence and Law 10 (4):283-294.
David Mercer (2008). Science, Legitimacy, and “Folk Epistemology” in Medicine and Law: Parallels Between Legal Reforms to the Admissibility of Expert Evidence and Evidence-Based Medicine. Social Epistemology 22 (4):405 – 423.
Susan L. Crockin (2010). Legal Conceptions: The Evolving Law and Policy of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #93,308 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #289,836 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?