Science, common sense and common law: Courtroom inquiries and the public understanding of science

Social Epistemology

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 183-196

  Lynch, Michael ^a   McNally, Ruth ^a  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011200980     PISSN: 02691728     EISSN: 14645297     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/026917299298709     Document Type: Note

References (36)

1. Mannheim, K. 1936, Ideology and Utopia (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World).
2. Stone, M. 1995[1988], Cross-Examination in Criminal Trials, 2nd edn, (London: Butterworths)
3. Shapin, S. 1995 Cordelia’ s love: Credibility and the social studies of science’, Perspectives on Science, 3, 255-275.
4. Garfinkel, H. 1974, On the origins of the term ethnomethodology’, in R. Turner (ed.), Ethnomethodology (Hammondsworth: Penguin), pp. 15-18.
5. Garfinkel, H. 1967, Some rules of correct decisions that jurors respect, Ch. 4 of Studies in Ethnomethodology (Englewood CliOEs, NJ: Prentice Hall), pp. 104-115
6. Pollner, M. Mundane reasoning’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 4 (1974), pp. 35-54
7. Pollner, M. 1975, The very coinage of your brain: the anatomy of reality disjunctures’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 5, 411-430
8. Pollner, M. 1987, Mundane Reason: Reality in Everyday and Sociological Discourse(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
9. Atkinson, J.M. and Drew, P. 1979, Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings (London:Macmillan)
10. Drew, P. 1992, Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape, in P. Drew and J.Heritage (eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 470-520
11. Brannigan, A. and Lynch, M. 1987, On bearing false witness: perjury and credibility as interactional accomplishments’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 16, 115-146
12. Lynch, M. and Bogen, D. 1996, The Spectacle of History: Speech, Text and Memory at the Iran-Contra Hearings (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
13. Pollner (1974) (see note 4). For a discussion of related themes in the history of science
14. Shapin, S. 1994, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), especially Chapters 3 and 5.
15. See Bowker, G. 1992, What’ s in a patent?, in W. Bijker and J. Law (eds), Shaping Technology) Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 53-74
16. Cambrosio, A., Keating, P., and MacKenzie, M. 1990, Scientific practice in the courtroom: The construction of sociotechnical identities in a biotechnology patent dispute, Social Problems, 37, 275-293.
17. Jasanoff, S. 1996, Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)
18. Wynne, Brian. 1989, Establishing the rules of laws: constructing expert authority, in R. Smith and B. Wynne(eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law(London: Routledge).
19. Wigmore, J. Wigmore’ s Code of the Rules of Evidence in Trials of Law, 3d ed., (Boston: Little Brown), 1940, p. 29, sec. 1043. For a discussion of the truth ® nding engine’
20. Lynch, M. 1998, The discursive production of uncertainty: the OJ Simpson dream team’ and the sociology of knowledge machine’, Social Studies of Science 28, 829-868.
21. Lynch, M. and Jasanoff, S. (guest eds) 1998, Contested Identities: Science, Law & Forensic Practice’, special issue of Social Studies of Science 28, 5- 6.
22. Fuchs, S. and Ward, S. 1994, What is deconstruction, and where and when does it take place? Making facts in science, building cases in law’, American Sociological Review, 59, 481-500
23. Fish, S. 1989, Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies (Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
24. See Edmond, G. 1998, Azaria’ s accessories: the social (legal-scientific)construction of the Chamberlains’ guilt and innocence’, Melbourne Univsersity Law Review, 22, 396-441.
25. see, Lynch and Bogen (1996), pp. 74-88; 158- 169 (see note 4).
26. Goodwin, C. 1994, Professional vision’, American Anthropologist, 96, 606-633.
27. Gieryn, T. 1983, Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science’, American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795
28. Gilbert, G. N. and Mulkay, M. 1984, Opening Pandora’ s Box: An Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
29. Roberston, B. and Vignaux, G. A. 1995, Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom (Wiley: Chichester), p. 19.
30. Interview with Professor Peter Donnelly, Oxford University, 28 November 1997.
31. Thwaites R. and Brittain, M., 1997, Perfected Grounds of Appeal and Skeletal Argument ’, Denis John Adams vs Regina, in The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, 25 September 1997, p. 4.
32. Thwaites R. and Brittain, M., 1997, Perfected Grounds of Appeal and Skeletal Argument ’, Denis John Adams vs Regina, in The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, 25 September 1997., p. 5.
33. Porter, T. 1995, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
34. Gieryn (1983) (see note 17).
35. Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (eds) 1996, Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
36. Jasanoff, S. 1992, What judges should know about the sociology of science’, JurimetricsJournal, 32, 345-359.