Epistemology in the courtroom: A little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing
Core epistemological questions-questions about what we know, how we know it, and when we are justified in saying we know it-have a long and deep history. The US Supreme Court broached the subject in the 1993 decision Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, with references to Hempel, Popper, and...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | unknown |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2005.061838 |
id |
ftrepec:oai:RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2005.061838_9 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftrepec:oai:RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2005.061838_9 2024-04-14T08:12:25+00:00 Epistemology in the courtroom: A little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing Ozonoff, D. http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2005.061838 unknown http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2005.061838 article ftrepec 2024-03-19T10:31:38Z Core epistemological questions-questions about what we know, how we know it, and when we are justified in saying we know it-have a long and deep history. The US Supreme Court broached the subject in the 1993 decision Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, with references to Hempel, Popper, and other scholars. We comment here on the articles of Rothman and Greenland, who are scientists, and Haack, who is a philosopher. Their views suggest that questions of causation are neither as simple nor as difficult as many scientists and philosophers have made them. Article in Journal/Newspaper Greenland RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) Greenland |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) |
op_collection_id |
ftrepec |
language |
unknown |
description |
Core epistemological questions-questions about what we know, how we know it, and when we are justified in saying we know it-have a long and deep history. The US Supreme Court broached the subject in the 1993 decision Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, with references to Hempel, Popper, and other scholars. We comment here on the articles of Rothman and Greenland, who are scientists, and Haack, who is a philosopher. Their views suggest that questions of causation are neither as simple nor as difficult as many scientists and philosophers have made them. |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Ozonoff, D. |
spellingShingle |
Ozonoff, D. Epistemology in the courtroom: A little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing |
author_facet |
Ozonoff, D. |
author_sort |
Ozonoff, D. |
title |
Epistemology in the courtroom: A little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing |
title_short |
Epistemology in the courtroom: A little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing |
title_full |
Epistemology in the courtroom: A little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing |
title_fullStr |
Epistemology in the courtroom: A little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing |
title_full_unstemmed |
Epistemology in the courtroom: A little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing |
title_sort |
epistemology in the courtroom: a little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2005.061838 |
geographic |
Greenland |
geographic_facet |
Greenland |
genre |
Greenland |
genre_facet |
Greenland |
op_relation |
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2005.061838 |
_version_ |
1796310214783270912 |