Recognition of scientific evidence

Author: Kenneth R. Foster
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2001-06-01
Features: What is "scientific knowledge"? When does it possess reliability? These seemingly simple yet highly deceptive questions have long been a source of contentious debate. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on whether scientific evidence could be admissible in federal court: Federal judges could admit expert scientific evidence, but such evidence must qualify as "scientific knowledge," and the testimony must be scientifically "reliable" and "valid." This book explores principles established by the 1993 Daubert case ruling. Foster and Huber regard such issues as "fitness" (whether a seemingly correct theory can connect specific facts to broader factual issues in dispute), such as the verifiability of erroneous scientific claims, the reliability of science (particularly in epidemiology and toxicology), the meaning of "scientific validity," peer review, the demarcation of disciplinary boundaries, and the risks of confusion and bias when scientific evidence is presented to a jury. In practice, there is a need for operationalizable evidence rules, while the scientific community and other fields have their own perspectives on the validity and reliability of science. In the concluding section of the book, Foster and Huber attempt to reconcile these two viewpoints.