Irreconcilable Differences? The Troubled Marriage of Science and Law.

Part of a special issue on conventions in science and law. Scientific testimony in litigation has always prompted complaints both about the venality and dishonesty of scientific witnesses and about the scientific ignorance and credulity of jurors, attorneys, and judges. There are deep tensions bet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Law & Contemporary Problems Vol. 72; no. 1; pp. 1 - 24
Autor principal: Haack, Susan
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Duke University Winter2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=502128069&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 502128069
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00239186
        LCP
      jtl: Law & Contemporary Problems
      issn: 00239186
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Winter2009
      vid: 72
      iid: 1
      pid: 588
      pub: Duke University
    artinfo:
      ui: 502128069
      ppf: 1
      ppct: 23
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 1.7MB
      tig:
        atl: Irreconcilable Differences? The Troubled Marriage of Science and Law.
      aug:
        au: Haack, Susan
      su:
        Science & law
        Expert evidence
      sug:
        subj:
          Science & law
          Expert evidence
      ab: Part of a special issue on conventions in science and law. Scientific testimony in litigation has always prompted complaints both about the venality and dishonesty of scientific witnesses and about the scientific ignorance and credulity of jurors, attorneys, and judges. There are deep tensions between the goals and values of the scientific enterprise and the culture of the law. More specifically, there are tensions between the investigative character of science and the adversarial culture of the U.S. legal system, between the scientific search for general principles and the legal focus on particular cases, between the pervasive fallibilism of the sciences and the concern of the law for prompt and final resolutions, between the scientific push for innovation and the legal system's concern for precedent, between the informal pragmatism of scientific investigation and the reliance of the legal system on formal rules and procedures, and between the theoretical goals of science and the legal system's link to policy.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N