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.
In Science and Social Inequality by Sandra Harding, I found a discussion of claims to “absolute truth” in science (and the fear of relativism) particularly interesting.
Researchers in Spain recently published an examination of scientific citation practices, and discovered the obvious: scientists don’t use citations purely for altruistic reasons.
Robert Merton, in “The Normative Structure of Science” (from The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations), posits four sets of “institutional imperatives” that together “comprise the ethos of modern science”: universalism, communism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. How well do these four sets of imperatives describe the “ethos of modern law”?
Last May I finished my 3L year, and am now the proud possessor of a JD. On Thursday I began my first year program as a graduate student in the history of science. The experiences, perhaps unsurprisingly, have been strikingly different: law school is, ultimately, preparatory to practicing law as an attorney, and much of its emphasis is on tracking students in that direction. Graduate school in the humanities and social sciences, meanwhile, is about training future academics.
It is so much more fun to “expound” on the “adaptable” Constitution and simply pretend that the “hard-wired” one can always be “worked around.” But what if it can’t? What if there is a gorilla (or rattlesnake) in the room?
Image via CrunchBase
Speaking in the context of technology, Michael Crandell at GigaOM writes:
Take yourself back for a moment to 1990, to the era of dueling operating systems: OS/2 and Windows. At the time, many people still used MS-DOS, and Windows was new (and klunky). Microsoft had cooperated with IBM to create OS/2 to overcome the [...]
John Pfaff continues his interesting discussion of science, the adversarial process, and the law at PrawfsBlawg:
So far I have looked at how to incorporate systematic reviews into our current legal framework, whether through court-appointed Rule 706 experts or through special masters or technical advisors assisting judges in their Daubert or Frye decisions. In both cases, [...]
Brock Shinen writes an in-depth article from the perspective of an intellectual property and entertainment lawyer that says, “No.”
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
SSRN-The Failure of Public WiFi by Eric Fraser:
This short piece describes the failure of the widespread plans to provide public wireless internet access. It identifies three interrelated types of causes for the near-universal failure of these ambitious plans: regulatory, technical, and economic.
As the article points out, WiFi – while incredibly [...]
Image by maveric2003 via Flickr
As long as I’m following the lead of Lawrence Solum at the Legal Theory Blog, I want to recommend the following new article: Judicial Analysis of Complex & Cutting-Edge Science in the Daubert Era: Epidemiologic Risk Assessment as a Test Case for Reform Strategies by Andrew Jurs. From the abstract:
One way [...]
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