title: Epistemology in the courtroom: a little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing.
abstract: 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.
authors: Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany Street, Boston, MA 02118, USA. dozonoff@bu.edu
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Ozonoff
mesh_terms: D015984:Causality; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D033161:Government Regulation; D006801:Humans; D033222:Judicial Role; D019359:Knowledge; D011634:Public Health / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011640:Public Policy; D012586:Science / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000379:methods; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D014481:United States