Epistemology in the Courtroom
A Little “Knowledge” Is a Dangerous Thing
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11029695 |
|---|---|
| Authors | David Ozonoff (0000-0002-4281-4171, The author is with the Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Mass., corresponding author) |
| Year | 2005 |
| Volume | 95 |
| Issue | S1 |
| Pages | S13-S15 |
| Publication date | 2005-07-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Journal of Public Health (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0090-0036 • E-ISSN: 1541-0048 |
| Publisher | American Public Health Association (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.2105/ajph.2005.061838 |
| PMID | 16030329 |
| OpenAlex | W2074784101 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 2 |
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
Causation · Epistemology · Political science · Simple (philosophy) · Subject (documents) · Supreme court · Computer Science · Ethics in Clinical Research · Law · Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy · Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare · Philosophy · Psychology
| Citations per year | 0.14 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2005 - 2006 (2) |
| Highly cited | No |