Expert statistical testimony and epidemiological evidence: The toxic effects of lead exposure on children
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The past two decades have seen a dramatic growth in the use of statisticians and economists for the presentation of expert testimony in legal proceedings. In this paper, we describe a hypothetical case modeled on real ones and involving statistical testimony regarding the causal effect of lead on lowering the IQs of children who ingest lead paint chips. The data we use come from a well-known pioneering study on the topic and the analyses we describe as the expert testimony are similar to ones that can be found in major scientific journals. The battle of the experts in this hypothetical case resembles that which many encounter as expert witnesses. The paper concludes with some observations and advice.
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Axel Gelfert (2011). Expertise, Argumentation, and the End of Inquiry. Argumentation 25 (3):297-312.
Tony Ward (2006). English Law's Epistemology of Expert Testimony. Journal of Law and Society 33 (4):572-595.
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.
Bruce D. Sales & Leonore Simon (1993). Institutional Constraints on the Ethics of Expert Testimony. Ethics and Behavior 3 (3 & 4):231 – 249.
Jennifer Mnookin, Idealizing Science and Demonizing Experts: An Intellectual History of Expert Evidence.
David M. Godden & Douglas Walton (2006). Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System. Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
Susan Haack (2008). Proving Causation: The Holism of Warrant and the Atomism of Daubert. Journal of Health and Biomedical Law 4:253-289.
Douglas Walton & David Godden (2006). Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System. Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #195,080 of 1,102,036 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #192,049 of 1,102,036 )
How can I increase my downloads?