Skip to main content

Truth and Justice, Inquiry and Advocacy, Science and Law

Buy Article:

$48.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

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 finality 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.

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0952-1917.2004.00252.x

Affiliations: University of Miami, Department of Philosophy, USA

Publication date: March 1, 2004

bpl/raju/2004/00000017/00000001/art00002
dcterms_title,dcterms_description,pub_keyword
6
5
20
40
5

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more