Epistemology in the courtroom: A little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 95, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2005, Pages

  Ozonoff, David ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COURT; DECISION MAKING; HISTORY; LAW SUIT; PHILOSOPHY; REVIEW; SCIENCE;

CAUSALITY; EXPERT TESTIMONY; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; JUDICIAL ROLE; KNOWLEDGE; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC POLICY; SCIENCE; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 22744444694     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.061838     Document Type: Review

References (7)

1. Hart HLA, Honoré AM. Causation in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959.
2. Honoré T. Necessary and sufficient conditions in tort law. In Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law, edited by DG Owen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, 363-385.
3. Haack S. Trial and error: The Supreme Court's philosophy of science. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:S66-S73.
4. Dretske F. The conceptions of knowledge: rational vs. reliable belief. In Perception, Knowledge and Belief: Selected Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 80-81.
5. Klee R. Introduction to the Philosophy of Science: Cutting Nature at its Seams. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
6. Quine WVO, Ullian JS. The Web of Belief, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
7. Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Causation and causal inference in epidemiology. Am J Public Health. 2005;95: S144-S150.