Explaining the tension between the supreme court's embrace of validity as the Touchstone of admissibility of expert testimony and lower courts' (seeming) rejection of same

Episteme 5 (3):pp. 329-342 (2008)
By lopsided majorities, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of cases, persistently commanded the lower courts to condition the admission of proffered expert testimony on the demonstrated validity of the proponents’ claims of expertise. In at least one broad area – the so-called forensic sciences – the courts below have largely evaded the Supreme Court's holdings. This paper aims to try to explain this massive defiance by the lower courts in terms of social epistemology
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.3366/E1742360008000439
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 31,871
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index

Total downloads
60 ( #99,350 of 2,231,943 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
42 ( #9,139 of 2,231,943 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature