Truth and Justice, Inquiry and Advocacy, Science and Law

12 Pages Posted: 25 Jul 2012  

Susan Haack

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

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: 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.

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

Suggested Citation

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

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

Paper statistics

Downloads
94
Rank
189,336
Abstract Views
453