Warrant, Causation, and the Atomism of Evidence Law

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The epistemological analysis offered in this paper reveals that a combination of pieces of evidence, none of them sufficient by itself to warrant a causal conclusion to the legally required degree of proof, may do so jointly. The legal analysis offered here, interlocking with this, reveals that Daubert's requirement that courts screen each item of scientific expert testimony for reliability can actually impede the process of arriving at the conclusion most warranted by the evidence proffered.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)253-266
Number of pages14
JournalEpisteme
Volume5
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2008

Fingerprint

Warrants
Atomism
Causation
Expert Testimony
Epistemological
Causal

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • History and Philosophy of Science

Cite this

Warrant, Causation, and the Atomism of Evidence Law. / Haack, Susan.

In: Episteme, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2008, p. 253-266.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b7cb7bfae03b47af915cfe52a82f2e78,
title = "Warrant, Causation, and the Atomism of Evidence Law",
abstract = "The epistemological analysis offered in this paper reveals that a combination of pieces of evidence, none of them sufficient by itself to warrant a causal conclusion to the legally required degree of proof, may do so jointly. The legal analysis offered here, interlocking with this, reveals that Daubert's requirement that courts screen each item of scientific expert testimony for reliability can actually impede the process of arriving at the conclusion most warranted by the evidence proffered.",
author = "Susan Haack",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.3366/E1742360008000373",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "253--266",
journal = "Episteme",
issn = "1742-3600",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Warrant, Causation, and the Atomism of Evidence Law

AU - Haack, Susan

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - The epistemological analysis offered in this paper reveals that a combination of pieces of evidence, none of them sufficient by itself to warrant a causal conclusion to the legally required degree of proof, may do so jointly. The legal analysis offered here, interlocking with this, reveals that Daubert's requirement that courts screen each item of scientific expert testimony for reliability can actually impede the process of arriving at the conclusion most warranted by the evidence proffered.

AB - The epistemological analysis offered in this paper reveals that a combination of pieces of evidence, none of them sufficient by itself to warrant a causal conclusion to the legally required degree of proof, may do so jointly. The legal analysis offered here, interlocking with this, reveals that Daubert's requirement that courts screen each item of scientific expert testimony for reliability can actually impede the process of arriving at the conclusion most warranted by the evidence proffered.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85010641885&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85010641885&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3366/E1742360008000373

DO - 10.3366/E1742360008000373

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85010641885

VL - 5

SP - 253

EP - 266

JO - Episteme

JF - Episteme

SN - 1742-3600

IS - 3

ER -