In the American system (and, perhaps to a lesser extent, in all countries following the Anglo-American legal approach), science and scientific evidence emerges and is interpreted through the actions of the parties involved. Expert witnesses testify for a particular side, and are employed by a particular side.
There is a philosophical thesis (attributed jointly to Pierre Duhem and Willard Quine) that, when simplified, explains how a given set of facts can produce more than one apparently true conclusion: essentially, different background assumptions lead to different conclusions. A related concept is known as underdetermination: that a given set of evidence can be explained by more than one–potentially conflicting–theory.
Within the context of the contemporary vaccination debate, neither side has a monopoly on a particular kind of argument.
Why is it that modern Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists seem to struggle with accepting science today? Why does this struggle emerge especially around biology, particularly evolution? And why have many evangelicals turned to approaches like “Intelligent Design,” which instead of replacing science with religion, instead seeks to co-opt science within terms acceptable to Protestant evangelicalism?
A federal judge has dismissed Jewel v. NSA, a case from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of AT&T customers challenging the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans’ phone calls and emails.
Sometimes I feel that I spend an inordinate amount of time attacking copyright, as if I wished to eliminate it. I do not. But I do feel the balance is off. But how should we find the proper balance?
If the real purpose of copyright law is to “promote the progress,” then why not make sure [...]
While the use of secret evidence may be acceptable initially (as part of an investigation or short-term detention while more evidence is gathered), the defense needs access to this evidence. Without it, any trial or legal process is simply unfair.
WSJ.com – High Court Says No to Wiretapping, Yes to Exclusionary Rule:
Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted cert in a case that, commentators say, gives them an opporunity to carve out more exceptions to the “exclusionary rule,” a criminal procedure doctrine that excludes evidence obtained from an unlawful search. At the same time, the Court, without [...]
Computerworld Opinion – 10GB of e-mail could cost you $1M:
The growing number of e-discovery requests associated with the recently updated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) is forcing companies to look for ways to automate their e-discovery process (see “FAQ: Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Affect Storage Plans“).
This blog represents my views, my opinions, and my thoughts at a moment in time. It's focus is on law and technology, along with history, education, science, and anything else that strikes my fancy.| © 2005-2010 by Kristopher Nelson. Want to republish? Get permission. Want to quote? That's fair use. | Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha |
Follow me on Twitter