Re: [asa] Scientific Evidence in the Courts -- Of Possible Interest

The topic of David's post (qualification of expert witnesses) is
related to the thread on peer review. In my experience, peer review
looks like perfection by comparison to the acceptance of expert
testimony in a trial. A cruel irony of the Daubert standard which was
intended to enlarge what could constitute expert testimony is that it
has in fact been used to disqualify the good with the bad over lay
persons standards of what constitutes science (e.g. "a known rate of
error"). I have seen shameless physics that seemed to be from unknown
parallel universes comparable to what is found in the Creationist
literature. A favorite quote from a friend after I was complaining
about the outrageous physics of the other side was, "Joel, you've got
to stop being surprised about what people say in this business." (His
other was, "Now, don't get overconfident based on the facts Joel.")

On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 11:17:33AM +0200, David Opderbeck wrote:
> Thorough Note in the current Harvard Journal of Public Policy on the
> development of the Daubert standard for admissibility of scientific
> evidence in U.S. federal courts:
> [1]http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No3_Welch.pdf
>
> References
>
> Visible links
> 1. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No3_Welch.pdf

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel W. Cannon                   |   (724)223-6146         
Physics Department               |   jcannon@washjeff.edu 
Washington and Jefferson College |      
Washington, PA 15301             |      
                                     
                    
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.