Science, legitimacy, and “folk epistemology” in medicine and law: Parallels between legal reforms to the admissibility of expert evidence and evidence-based medicine
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Epistemology 22 (4):405 – 423 (2008)
This paper explores some of the important parallels between recent reforms to legal rules for the admissibility of scientific and expert evidence, exemplified by the US Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in 1993, and similar calls for reforms to medical practice, that emerged around the same time as part of the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) movement. Similarities between the “movements” can be observed in that both emerged from a historical context where the quality of medicine and legal approaches to science were being subjected to growing criticism, and in the ways that proponents of both movements have used appeals to “folk epistemologies” of science to help legitimate their reform aspirations. The term folk epistemology is used to describe the weaving together of formal and informal images of scientific method with normative and pragmatic concerns such as eradicating “junk science”, and promoting medical best practice. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the unfocused breadth of these aspirations the implications of these “reforms” for medical and legal practice have not been straightforward, although they do represent an important new set of rhetorical resources to critique and or legitimate expertise in medical and legal domains. Discussion closes, by noting the growth of calls for these movements to reciprocate in areas where law and medicine intersect, such as medical negligence litigation
|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
Steven Yearley, David Mercer, Andy Pitman, Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway (2012). Perspectives on Global Warming. Metascience 21 (3):531-559.
Similar books and articles
Eric A. Youngstrom & Christine Pellegrini Busch (2000). Expert Testimony in Psychology: Ramifications of Supreme Court Decision in Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. V. Carmichael. Ethics and Behavior 10 (2):185 – 193.
Glen I. Spielmans & Peter I. Parry (2010). From Evidence-Based Medicine to Marketing-Based Medicine: Evidence From Internal Industry Documents. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7 (1):13-29.
Stephen G. Henry (2006). Recognizing Tacit Knowledge in Medical Epistemology. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (3):187--213.
Agata Wnukiewicz-Kozłowska (2007). The Admissibility of Research in Emergency Medicine. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3):315-332.
Stacy Lee Burns (2008). Demonstrating “Reasonable Fear” at Trial: Is It Science or Junk Science? [REVIEW] Human Studies 31 (2):107 - 131.
Maya J. Goldenberg (2006). On Evidence and Evidence-Based Medicine: Lessons From the Philosophy of Science. Social Science and Medicine 62 (11):2621-2632.
Maya J. Goldenberg (2010). Clinical Evidence and the Absent Body in Medical Phenomenology. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethiics 3 (1):43-71.
Maya J. Goldenberg (2009). Iconoclast or Creed? Objectivism, Pragmatism, and the Hierarchy of Evidence. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 52 (2):168-187.
Added to index2009-02-01
Total downloads19 ( #86,909 of 1,098,400 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #42,765 of 1,098,400 )
How can I increase my downloads?