HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Haack, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Haack, S. Related Collections Health Law Health Policy Government

Susan Haack, PhD

The author is Professor of Law and of Philosophy at the University of Miami, Miami, Fla.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Susan Haack, PhD, School of Law, University of Miami, 1311 Miller Drive, Coral Gables, FL 33124 (e-mail: s.haack{at}miami.edu).

Apparently equating the question of whether expert testimony is reliable with the question of whether it is genuinely scientific, in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993) the US Supreme Court ran together Karl Popper’s and Carl Hempel’s incompatible philosophies of science. But there can be no criterion discriminating scientific, and hence reliable, testimony from the unscientific and unreliable; for not all, and not only, scientific evidence is reliable.

In subsequent rulings (General Electric Co v Joiner, 1997; Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael, 1999) the Court has backed quietly away from Daubert’s confused philosophy of science, but not from federal judges’ responsibilities for screening expert testimony. Efforts to educate judges scientifically, and increased use of court-appointed experts are, at best, only partial solutions to the problems with scientific testimony.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. A. Cole A Cautionary Tale About Cautionary Tales About Intervention Organization, January 1, 2009; 16(1): 121 - 141. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. S. Carolan The Bright- and Blind-Spots of Science: Why Objective Knowledge is not Enough to Resolve Environmental Controversies Crit Sociol, September 1, 2008; 34(5): 725 - 740. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. W. Green and R. E. Glasgow Evaluating the Relevance, Generalization, and Applicability of Research: Issues in External Validation and Translation Methodology Eval Health Prof, March 1, 2006; 29(1): 126 - 153. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. Bingham, L. Boden, R. Clapp, P. Hoppin, S. Krimsky, D. Michaels, D. Ozonoff, and A. Robbins BINGHAM ET AL. RESPOND Am J Public Health, February 1, 2006; 96(2): 206 - 207. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Michaels Scientific Evidence and Public Policy Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S5 - S7. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Ozonoff Epistemology in the Courtroom: A Little "Knowledge" Is a Dangerous Thing Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S13 - S15. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Melnick A Daubert Motion: A Legal Strategy to Exclude Essential Scientific Evidence in Toxic Tort Litigation Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S30 - S34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Michaels and C. Monforton Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public's Health and Environment Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S39 - S48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]