How Much Evidence Is Enough? Conventions of Causal Inference.
Part of a special issue on conventions in science and law. The writer discusses some conventions in the conduct of science and the communication of scientific information to nonscientists that can make it difficult for judges, lawyers, regulators, and politicians to make decisions about complex env...
| Publicado en: | Law & Contemporary Problems Vol. 72; no. 1; pp. 121 - 137 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Duke University
Winter2009
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| Sumario: | Part of a special issue on conventions in science and law. The writer discusses some conventions in the conduct of science and the communication of scientific information to nonscientists that can make it difficult for judges, lawyers, regulators, and politicians to make decisions about complex environmental and health issues. He focuses on the methods and conventions of causal inference that are often employed in debates over whether chemicals and technologies are harmful to human health and the environment. He argues that there are far too many examples of environmental hazards that were allowed to be produced despite substantial evidence indicating harm. He presents some examples of how the management and communication of uncertainty might improve the contributions of science to environmental health problems. |
|---|