Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2117375
 
 

Citations (2)



 


 



Truth and Justice, Inquiry and Advocacy, Science and Law


Susan Haack


University of Miami - School of Law; University of Miami - Department of Philosophy

March 1, 2004


Abstract:     
There is tension between the adversarialism of the U.S. legal culture and the investigative procedures of the sciences, and between the law's concern for finalilty and the open-ended fallibilism of science. A long history of attempts to domesticate scientific testimony by legal rules of admissibility has left federal judges with broad screening responsibilities; recent adaptations of adversarialism in the form of court-appointed experts have been criticized as "inquisitorial," even "undemocratic." In exploring their benefits and disadvantages, it would make sense to look to the experience of other legal systems.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 12

Keywords: inquiry vs. advocacy, scientific testimony, methods of scienc, fallibilism vs. finality, Frye, Daubert, Karl R. Popper, Judge Learned Hand

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: July 25, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Haack, Susan, Truth and Justice, Inquiry and Advocacy, Science and Law (March 1, 2004). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2117375 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2117375

Contact Information

Susan Haack (Contact Author)
University of Miami - School of Law ( email )
P.O. Box 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33146
United States
305-284-3541 (Phone)
305-284-6506 (Fax)
University of Miami - Department of Philosophy ( email )
P.O. Box 248054
Coral Gables, FL 33124-4670
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 265
Downloads: 57
Download Rank: 169,405
Citations:  2

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.656 seconds