Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286 (2006)
While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a dialectical context as a set of critical questions of the kind commonly used in models of argumentation.
|Keywords||argument argumentatoion expert testimony expert opinion legal argument legal argumentation dialectical model of argumentation|
|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
John L. Pollock (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. MIT Press.
Douglas Walton (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments From Authority. Penn State University Press.
Douglas Walton (2002). Legal Argumentation and Evidence. Penn State University Press.
Douglas N. Walton (1989). Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
A. Bird (2003). Defending Science--Within Reason Between Scientism and Cynicism. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
Citations of this work BETA
Adam J. L. Harris, Ulrike Hahn, Jens K. Madsen & Anne S. Hsu (2015). The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach. Cognitive Science 40 (1):n/a-n/a.
Ulrike Hahn & Jos Hornikx (forthcoming). A Normative Framework for Argument Quality: Argumentation Schemes with a Bayesian Foundation. Synthese:1-41.
Douglas Walton & Nanning Zhang (2013). The Epistemology of Scientific Evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (2):173-219.
Frank Zenker (2011). Experts and Bias: When is the Interest-Based Objection to Expert Argumentation Sound? [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (3):355-370.
Similar books and articles
Lawrence J. Nelson (2005). Is There Any Indication for Ethics Evidence? An Argument for the Admissibility of Some Expert Bioethics Testimony. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 33 (2):248-263.
Jennifer Mnookin, Idealizing Science and Demonizing Experts: An Intellectual History of Expert Evidence.
Bruce D. Sales & Leonore Simon (1993). Institutional Constraints on the Ethics of Expert Testimony. Ethics and Behavior 3 (3 & 4):231 – 249.
Jean H. M. Wagemans (2011). The Assessment of Argumentation From Expert Opinion. Argumentation 25 (3):329-339.
Richard Scheines, Expert Statistical Testimony and Epidemiological Evidence: The Toxic Effects of Lead Exposure on Children.
Tony Ward (2006). English Law's Epistemology of Expert Testimony. Journal of Law and Society 33 (4):572-595.
Douglas Walton (2003). Is There a Burden of Questioning? Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (1):1-43.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #134,159 of 1,781,294 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #167,843 of 1,781,294 )
How can I increase my downloads?