10th Anniversary Of Supreme Court's Daubert Ruling 279
scraggly codger writes "Slashdot readers might find it interesting to learn about the ongoing legal controversy over the role of federal judges as gatekeepers for scientific evidence in civil and criminal litigation in the US. Ten years ago the Supreme Court provided guidelines for admissibility of scientific evidence in the Daubert ruling. Readers might find it hard to believe from the text of the ruling, but the result has been a huge increase in the power of judges to exclude scientific evidence from presentation to juries, based on what many scientists and other observers consider an incredibly naive (or perhaps merely self-serving) model of science. There's been a spate of news stories covering the topic, perhaps the most prominent in the WSJ of Friday, 27 June, "'Junk Science' Ban Also Keeps Jurors From Sound Evidence" (regrettably not freely available online). I particularly recommend Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling You've Never Heard Of."
Well (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately science isn't always as concrete as say mathematics.
Science is not concrete, period. Science is a process of negating existing theories, and positing new ones. And these theories are based upon our observations via our senses. My senses 1st told me that the topic was "10th Anniversary of Supreme Court's Dilbert Ruling".
Science is a way of knowing, not the way of knowing.
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
What it does do instead is take a lot of credible science out of the courtroom and force jurors to decide on feeling rather than scientific findings.
The defendants could use a reversal of Daubert to their advantage too. Science should not be locked out of the court by over-zealous judges who are motivated by emotion.
Garbage Science (Score:3, Insightful)
Looking at the history, you will find a great deal of garbage science cluttering both the lab and court rooms. We can find a large number of examples of smart people making bad decisions based on garbage science. Look at the large number of people who've fallen for Freud.
I believe that most jurors are trying to make their decisions based on facts...not just
Re:Well (Score:4, Informative)
I spent a lot of time explaining that the there is not much improvement between a 30% 1 year survival rate and a 15% 1 year survival rate. With numbers like that the person was likely to die, it was just a matter of how. (The law in our state says that for malpractice there has to be a mistake AND harm.)
Lawyers were out there trying to turn statistics into causal results, the experts were saying no way (to both sides). I must have spent the first hour of deliberation just explaining what the numbers meant, why different experts looking at the same results can get different answers, etc.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
What I want to know is, how the hell did you sneak through the jury selection process??
Re:Well (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:2, Informative)
Dogbert (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dogbert (Score:2)
Re:Dogbert (Score:2)
Re:Dogbert (Score:2)
self-serving people? in today's age? (Score:3, Troll)
i honestly cannot see why anyone would do anything self-serving, especially in the American democratic system, to sway the masses....(wmd-gwb)..
Re:self-serving people? in today's age? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:self-serving people? in today's age? (Score:2)
moderators are stupid.
wmd-gwb= weapons of mass destruction-George W Bush
which is very much on topic.
regards,
Considering that it took them 17 years to ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Considering that it took them 17 years to ... (Score:2)
Re:Considering that it took them 17 years to ... (Score:2, Informative)
No, that's wrong (Score:2)
Re:Considering that it took them 17 years to ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Considering that it took them 17 years to ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Considering that it took them 17 years to ... (Score:2)
Hate to say it, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Article Translation: "We need all the weapons we can get to launch mass-tort lawsuits, and it's not fair that a judge might have to judge something other than the guilt or innocence of the defendent. Not that they're innocent...we wouldn't sue them otherwise, would we?"
I may sound bitter, but I work for a large legal company (not a firm) and have to deal with the mass-tort vampires all day.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see companies that knowingly fuck over the consumer get their comeuppance, but at the same time, throwing out this ruling would open the floodgates for millions of lawsuits over the smallest infractions that a lawyer could find a scientist to support.
Re:Hate to say it, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hate to say it, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I downloaded their paper, and on the last page it reads:
So, a fund created because of a lawsuit that was heavily influenced by junk science (according to the losers) is paying for a paper that recommends
Re:Hate to say it, but... (Score:2)
The examples in the report were all cases on the hairy edge of the evidence. A company develops a drug, goes through the rigerous testing process required by the FDA, receives the FDA's approval, and markets the drug. Then a c
He always finds a way! (Score:3, Funny)
Actually...I find it quite appropriate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually...I find it quite appropriate... (Score:3, Insightful)
My main problem with this though, is that I would think that instead of erring on the side of caution when it comes to science though, they should be more willing to risk erring on the side of the defendant, since proof beyond reasonable doubt (or clear and convincing proof depending on the case) is required, and if someone has re
Erring on the side of the defendant (Score:2)
This is a good thing, but it needs to be applied carefully, otherwise the defendants (particularly large corporations) will be able to exclude all unfavourable evidence from consideration.
It's healthy, for example, to introduce a degr
Re:Actually...I find it quite appropriate... (Score:5, Informative)
No, it doens't work as well as "seen on TV", but it does work.
[OT]... (Score:3, Informative)
I use a similar product to clean my beer bottles. It is an oxidizing cleaning agent. It is not a good idea to have left over chlorine on/in your bottle when you are bottling beer. The stuff works pretty well.
Bleaches and bleaching... Catch me if you can (Score:3, Interesting)
I wondered, why not make the background ink on the checks bleachable so that if anyone bleaches anything written with a Bic pen, the background ink will come off too making the tampering obvious?
Since the film to
Re:Actually...I find it quite appropriate... (Score:2)
-Ab
Re:Actually...I find it quite appropriate... (Score:2)
Re:Actually...I find it quite appropriate... (Score:2)
You may not notice a difference, but clean one and see how much crap it pulled out of the air. To those who are more sensitive to crap in the air, the benefits are more noticeable - or so I've heard. I don't have one myself.
"Goddamn Jesus"???? (Score:2)
Besides, two of the three products you sited are actually very good; doing everything that is claimed for them.
To bad that reasoning is not taught in school.
Re:Actually...I find it quite appropriate... (Score:3, Funny)
Putting a magnet bracelet on my dong, however, has yielding me the ability to " 1split my girl with my hum!ungous john_son5 "
Re:Actually...I find it quite appropriate... (Score:2)
If this is true, why does OxyClean take up more shelf space at my local Wal-Mart than most of the other detergents? Isn't Wal-Mart the store that will only sell stuff that has something like 97% per second throughput? Would stuff sell like that if it did "jack shit"?
Re:Actually...I find it quite appropriate... (Score:2, Insightful)
OxyClean is teh shiznit. Most judges I know are 60 year old men that have no clue about science or technology. Seems like another half assed law to me.
Why it will never be overturned (Score:5, Funny)
"Your honor, I have here two peer-reviewed, meticulous studies which show how the Daubert decision prevents legitimate science from being submitted ..."
"Evidence denied. Next case!"That crazy Daubert (Score:2, Funny)
Umm.. (Score:3, Funny)
So one could have legitimate scientific evidence excluded from court, but a kook on the stand could say "My god (or any other invisible friend) made me do it." and the judge would allow that? fear...
Re:Umm.. (Score:2)
Well... (Score:2, Funny)
Judging the Judges (Score:5, Interesting)
"I can judge this." or "I cannot judge this."
By doing this, he essentially grants or denies himself (and subsequent judges) the authority to govern a situation, use a bit of information, or overule a law enacted by representative government.
Isn't it nice to know that the judicial system is only one third of the whole pie. God bless litigious America.
It's sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's sad (Score:2)
Re:It's sad (Score:2)
What about the guy who sued Nabisco for using partially hydrogenated soybean oil? Even if it's as grossly unhealthy as he claims, a lawsuit is not the correct way to go about seeking change. I bought a package of Oreos in protest. The lawsuit was quickly withdrawn.
Re:It's sad (Score:2, Funny)
Do I get extra points for mentioning SCO?
Re:It's sad (Score:2, Funny)
Oh come on, it wasn't that bad. Lighten up. Have an Oreo.
Re:It's sad (Score:2, Informative)
and then yesterday Kraft announced that they are cutting portion sizes, fat and sugar from all their products, including Oreos.
so while a lawsuit might not be the cor
Re:It's sad (Score:5, Informative)
Daubert was written to keep crap out of the courtroom rather than to "trounce" what you characterize as "good science". I wrote an outline on Daubert for a CLE recently (in the context of direct examinations of expert witnesses) and the portion of that related to Daubert is reproduced below as an FYI.
Rather than bowing to fads, Daubert simply requires the following things:
The "Daubert Five" Requirements for Expert Testimony
Expert is qualified
Expert's opinion is supported by scientific reasoning, methodology
Expert's opinion is supported by reliable data
Expert's opinion "fits" the facts of the case, to assist the Jury in understanding evidence or resolving a factual dispute
Expert's opinion is clear, directional, and unbiased enough to qualify for inclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
The Daubert Standard also calls upon the trial court to scrutinize an Expert's reasoning and methodology to assure that "relevant or reliable" scientific evidence supports the admissibility of Expert testimony. The following non-inclusive factors are to be considered:
Daubert's Admissibility Test for Expert Testimony
Reliability: Whether a scientific theory or technique can be and has been tested;
Peer Review and Publication: Whether the scientific or technical theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication. Submission to peer review and publication is not dispositive, but is viewed by the Court as a component of "good science," as distinguished from "junk science."
Error Rate, Standards Controlling Technique's Operation: The known or potential rate of error and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling technique's operation.
Generally Acceptance Factors: Whether the scientific technique or methodology is generally accepted in the scientific community involved. [This is still a factor to be considered despite the abolition of "The Frye Test," of "general acceptance," but it is not dispositive.]
Fitness: Whether the Expert testimony or scientific evidence "fits" the facts of the case so as to "assist" the Jury's understanding of the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."
None of that sounds unreasonable, and in practice it usually works well. I really don't understand why there is all this bitching about the ruling. Perhaps it is simply a generalized ignorance of how the courts work. I honestly don't know.
The "fast food" cases have largely been thrown out. The "McDonalds coffee lady" was reduced to $300,000 on appeal (and the actual evidence in that case was pretty incriminating, plus the plaintiff offered to settle for $15,000 before trial -- McDonald's fucked themselves in that case in about twenty different ways).
Blah, blah, blah...I hate lawyers...blah, blah, blah. Typical
GF.
Daubert was a big boost for skeptics (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember hearing (on 60 Minutes IIRC) that a Pennsylvania judge is questioning fingerprint analysis as legit evidence. I bet Daubert is responsible for that contraversy as well. Wonder how that turned out.
Quakery -- A budding psychologist's take (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Daubert was a big boost for skeptics (Score:2)
Re:Daubert was a big boost for skeptics (Score:2)
Like so many things in life, it's a popularity contest. Even much of science is like that, the only difference is, in science the scale is weig
Re:Daubert was a big boost for skeptics (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a lawyer (well, studying to be one) (Score:4, Informative)
Law 101 (Score:2)
No, you are NOT a lawyer. (Score:4, Insightful)
The articling students in our firm are just that, students.
Fastest way in the world to
Legal Class (Score:3, Interesting)
This article is interesting because the lawyer super class has appointed itself the position of determining what is and and is not science. Scientific arguments don't go through a peer to peer review, they go through a legal review.
The self appointed super class that judges scienc
Whats the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
instructed judges to examine the scientific method underlying expert evidence and to admit only that evidence that was both "relevant and reliable."
In other words, the science behind the experts testemone should be sound - and reprodusable. As far as beeing relevant... well, you don't want the plaintiff to bring in an expert on lungcancer if the case is about a braintumour, would you?
Basicly, INAL and all that, I read this as "the judge shouldn't turn his courtroom into a show of weird 'science'."
Peter Huber on science and the law (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.phuber.com/huber/js/js.htm
You may also find interesting materials on his web site:
http://www.phuber.com/
The Daubert ruling got me out of jury dury (Score:4, Interesting)
Cargo Cult Science (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just more of the system protecting the sytem. The late, great Dr. Richard Feynman said it best, and said it almost 30 years ago in a speach [brocku.ca] he gave at Caltech.
One of the most relevant passages (Score:5, Interesting)
If they let the evidence in, however, it will be the jury examining the scientific methods used. Most anyone who gets jury duty and is interviewed for a case that relied on science will be thrown out by one side or the other if they have a college education. The jury simply won't be equipped to properly judge scientific data either.
The only solution I can think of is to have a seperate pre-trial jury for scientific evidence, but the methods of selecting those jurors will be both highly selective to get scientific experts and will probably have to prevent the attorneys for both sides from rejecting them. If we do that, it's no longer really a trial by our peers, but a trial (at least in part) by appointed scientists.
Re:One of the most relevant passages (Score:4, Informative)
"Judges are not scientific experts and cannot be expected to judge the scientific methods used except in the most trivial experiments or studies."
Judges, at least in the Appellate (I should know how to spell that after taking a class just last semester) level, have help understanding scientific and other issues that they are not knowledgeable of through amicus curiae briefs.
These are essentially research papers put together by interested parties that attempt to inform a judge about anything scientifically/psychologically/etc. complicated.
Of course, amicus briefs can be filed by neutral parties or groups in favor of either side, so judges must weigh what both sides offer. But, hopefully, they can get a good idea of whether x evidence or testimony should be allowed in.
Why do I always think I've not made any sense at the end of a post?
Re:One of the most relevant passages (Score:2)
no examples? no evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm. Excuse me while I chew on that one for a second.
Daubert itself suggests the following criteria for determining admissability:
1) is the evidence based on a testable theory or technique;
2) has the theory or technique been peer reviewed;
3) in the case of a particular technique, does it have a known error rate and stan-dards
controlling the techniques operation; and
4) is the underlying science generally accepted?
Not seeing any problems with that so far. I'm also not seeing any good examples of cases which failed because obviously valid expert testimony was barred from the court room. I further note that the anti-Daubert website (see the PDF) claims that "Scientific evidence and opinion is especially crucial in toxic tort cases, when a plaintiff relies on scientific experts to demonstrate causality". That, to me, sounds remarkably similar to: "Shaky science allows us to sue to living shit out of anybody we want to, because even a 1% increase in the occurance of a particular disease sounds scary, and some scientist somewhere will be willing to testify in court for a few bucks."
I don't mean to sound overly cynical, but when I see lawyers complaining about (what judges define as) bad science being disallowed from the courtroom, you're going to have to do a bit better to convince me that I should be up in arms about this.
Re:no examples? no evidence? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the way that actual science works. Peer review. Lots of it, for a long time before every scientist starts believing in
Re:no examples? no evidence? (Score:2)
Yeah, cause all that DNA evidence would've shown that O.J. really didn't do it.
-Ab
Whopping Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
"Scientific conclusions are subject to perpetual revision. Law, on the other hand, must resolve disputes finally and quickly."
Incredible.
The real problem is it's apples and oranges. When they say "law" they mean "court cases". Legislation and common law (i.e., precedent) are infinitely and capriciously mutable. When they say "scientific conclusions" they don't mean "experimental results" but "theory", as the data gained from experiment is immutable, though its interpretation may be mutable, and the point of science is that theory is mutable but provably true within the known scope and margin of error. Whereas, as I said, the law is simply whatever a majority in a body (or an executive alone) accepts as agreeable, if not true. The law does not seek the truth, it seeks decisions consistent with its past decisions.
The law courts are therefore the last place that the validity of scientific theory should be tested.
Daubert is good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds fine to me. (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Judge are being asked to determine whether or not a scientific evidence is "valid-enough" for juries to consider.
2. Judges are too harsh in the judgement.
So what? Who would you rather have make the decision on the validity of the scientific evidence; a judge who at least has one or more post-graduat degree (even if that is not science related), or some Joe Schmuck who can barely add?
When it comes to a tort lawsuits, emotions rule the day FAR more than scientific evidence. If the jury sees some 12 year old kid with no hair with leukemia, all jury want is SOMEONE to tell them that somebody caused it, no matter how truthful it is.
Just look at Corning! The company is now BANKRUPT all based on what is now fully dis-credited "junk science" that somehow linked immunodeficiency illnesses to silicone breast implants. It doesn't matter than study after study since the lawsuits began have proven the link to be ineffectual at best, the company is still bankrupt.
The article is basically arguing that the Federal judges are setting bars that are too high, that juries should be the ones who decides whether or not the scientific claims are valid. PHOOEY!!! All there are arguing for is a shift in responsibility, and I for one would rather have the responsibliity on shoulders of a person who is TRAINED to judge and decide.
Re:Sounds fine to me. (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly and well worth repeating.
Re:Sounds fine to me. (Score:2)
Wrong. Corning filed bankrupsy to try to get out of the breast implant case.
Or at least according to http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur28.htm [lectlaw.com] and http://overlawyered.com/archives/00oct1.html#00100 6a [overlawyered.com] and many other links [google.com].
Lawsuits coming to a vendor near you... (Score:5, Interesting)
They press on and on about how bad the science is, e.g., how many thousands of chemicals there are, and how hard it is to get accurate science on them:
"This burden on the plaintiff
is considerable because very little is known about the toxicity of the 100,000 chemicals
or their derivatives that are registered for use in commerce. A study by the
National Research Council found that the most basic toxicity data on 75 percent of
the nation's 3,000 high-volume chemicals cannot be found in public records."
"Even when toxicity data is available, researchers rarely reach definitive conclusions that
proclaim: "exposure to toxic substance A will cause disease B." What they do find is that
a group of people, when exposed to a certain substance, are more or less likely to develop
a particular disease or condition than those not exposed."
The question for me is that if this science is so subjective how can they blast the judge for being forced to make a subjective judgement, e.g., it seems the subjective opinion has to be made by someone-- judge or jury. The problem is that a jury is far more likely to buy into the "science" because most people, I honestly believe, don't understand itm and don't want to. If they hear the little guy with numbers, graphs and pretty pie charts they're going to cast a judgement with huge rewards to discourage bad behavior of a company that is " more or less likely to develop a particular disease" by putting the company out of business and stuffing lawyers pockets.
Think about it, how many cell phone companies could withstand the barrage of people blaming them for cancer? Heck even Oreo was sued for transfats in it's cookies. IMHO if you're going to be putting people out of work you better have more than just a "suspicion" the company "might" be causing problems.
The backing of this organization seems to be the "Tellus Institute," a environmental lobby it's no wonder the organization wants to tip the balance of power.
But so what, I'm just an anonymous coward compared to a thousand lawyers and a PDF debiew on slashdot. Bah!
The original intent? (Score:3, Interesting)
That isn't to say that this doesn't shoot down a lot of legitimate science as well. I have to think about thinks like DNA evidence, etc, and what would have happened to such things when they weren't supported by the scientific community at large
Daubert on the web (Score:5, Interesting)
There's also a listing of other cases where this ruling has been applied. One of the most interesting is United States v. Villarman-Oviedo [uscourts.gov], which is a narcotics case where the admissibility of the evidence was confirmed despite the fact that the expert was obviously drunk when he took the stand.
Also, the arson case of United States v. Diaz [uscourts.gov] where the handwriting expert's opion was admissible, despite the fact that the handwriting expert was actually a phrenologist.
Clearly, this ruling has hand a profound negative impact on our judicial system.
Re:Daubert on the web (Score:2)
IANAL, but I had heard of this ruling several times before, and my impression is that, on the whole, very positive. I've been reading the links given on this topic, and haven't seen anything to change that **overall** judgement.
Re:Daubert on the web (Score:4, Insightful)
The Villarman-Oviedo case involves an agent testifying about drug slang. Not what most people consider "scientific", but it's admissible under the rules as expert testimony. There's nothing in the text of the opinion about him being drunk.
The Diaz case says nothing about the handwriting expert being a phrenologist. Looks like a pretty run-of-the-mill case to me.
On the other hand, the Daubert on the Web [daubertontheweb.com] website is a great resource for lawyers and those wanting to know more about this issue.
What's the ruling on one out of three? It's not enough to get you a reversal in the Court of Appeals...
WSJ Article (Score:2, Informative)
By SHARON BEGLEY
FROM THE ARCHIVES: June 27, 2003
'Junk Science' Ban Also Keeps Jurors From Sound Evidence
Ellen Relkin was sure that "junk science " played no part in her case. Her client, Lisa Soldo, a healthy mother of a newborn, suffered a massive intracranial hemorrhagic stroke at age 28, soon after starting on a drug prescribed to suppress lactation, and was left severely brain damaged. Ms. Relkin, at attorney with the Manhattan law firm Weitz & Luxenberg, thought science showed th
Science and Law will never be on the same page (Score:5, Insightful)
Science cares about external consistency. Scientists build models of the world, test them, and throw them away when they are inconsistent with observation.
Law cares about internal consistency. One of the most important considerations is precedent - "we did it this way last time". When the world changes, precedent gets overturned - eventually.
Science cares about reality. The gold standard in science is the published, reproducible procedure.
Law cares about verisimilitude - believable stories. The gold standard in law is getting twelve members of the community to believe your story, and not just any twelve people - if a person has any expertise related to the matter in court, they will be filtered out of the jury pool.
Science is never the last word. Observation can always make you change your model. Newton was the last word for centuries, now he's an approximation to Einstein.
Law is supposed to be final, and it defends its finality fiercely - witness the resistance to checking old decisions with new DNA techmology, whereas in science the first thing you do with a new tool is compare it with your old measurements.
Yeah, yeah, I know, Thomas Kuhn, postmodernism, yadda yadda... the above is the idealized way science works - reality is more complex and slow, but by and large peer review works.
Re:Science and Law will never be on the same page (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is not the idealized view of science here, but rather the different standards applied. If we're going to take the idealized view of science, how it ought to work (and I think more or less does over the long haul, despite the short-term problems), to be fair, take the same view of the law. If you do, you find they do
Re:Science and Law will never be on the same page (Score:2)
Also there's th
Re:Science and Law will never be on the same page (Score:2)
Actually, I believe its the other way around. The lawyers here in the US are supposed to uphold the law, not the defendant's guilt or innocence. An ideal defense attourney could care less if the defendant commited the crime, they are defending the law and the defendants rites and the rites of citizens as a whole.
The real problem is soft science (Score:3, Interesting)
For almost every study in psychology, there are at least 2 studies that contradict the results of that study, and there are studies to contradict those studies. The whole thing becomes one big mess, and is far too nebulous and confusing to be presented as evidence for a jury.
The real problem is drawing the line. Headlines in newspapers claim that "Daubert ruling excludes legitimate scientific evidence" and whatnot, but what is legitimate? Obviously, somebody believes in every scientific theory publicly available, or else it wouldn't be a theory at all, it would just be stupid. And especially in psychology, any result can be reproduced, given the right amount of time, and good resources =P.
The solution, I think, is on a per-case basis: have the judge evaluate the relevant science before the trial begins. If it is accepted, it is admissible. If it is not submitted for approval, or if it is not accepted, then it is not admissible.
I think thats what they're doing now (Score:2)
Re:The real problem is soft science (Score:2)
Science is a process. Remember Newton's "Laws"? Also the "real" sciences that you talk about are simple compared to the "soft" ones. Control of the environment is almost trivial in physics and chemistry, and almost impossible with live subjects. Also, there is almost no variability in physics (aside from quantum mechanics). Variablility between subjects and within subjects exists in the social sciences, and because of this, mo
WSJ article link @ Corbis (Score:5, Informative)
Our good friends at Corbis have scanned in this article [corbis.com] for us! There is also a good article at Tech Centeral Station. [techcentralstation.com]
This is tricky. (Score:4, Insightful)
But the political ramifications are great. On the one hand, exclude scientific evidence and risk ignorance of the truth. On the other hand, include scientific evidence and risk politicizing scientific knowledge.
Consider one of the examples given: pollution.
If we don't allow scientific diagnosis and treatment of the various problems associated with pollution, we'll almost surely mis-judge the relevance of pollution and possible routes to equitably manage it.
However, if we seek scientific advice for diagnosis and treatment, scientists will be increasingly be the targets of bribery. The higher the stakes, the more sure the corruption. In that scenario, you get the same bad advice, but you malign the body of the scientific establishment as well.
For evidence of this, look at the international debate on global warming. It's clear that financial interest is biasing the scientific arguments in the US policy analysis. Worse, once this debate is over, we can only assume the taste of money will remain on their tounges. It's easier to get grants for your dream research if you're owed a favor for a political performance.
Further in the future, a stronger political capacity in the sciences could lead to more fundamental changes in the organization of our society. Historically, the ability to control truth and the ability to rule have proved dangerous in solution. If the church cannot be trusted in front of God, why then scientists in front of Reason? Prudence demands keeping both separated from the State.
seems like kind of a natrual ruling (Score:2, Informative)
This is complicated stuff (Score:5, Informative)
At any rate, the first point I want to make is that someone has to be the gatekeeper. In most matters, it is the judge. I also want to point out that scientific evidence is not the ONLY thing that judges keep out of court. There's a lot of other stuff, too, that kicked out for one reason or another.
The second point I want to make is that judges DO NOT work in a vacuum. They are not just novices off the street and working solely what they are given. In most larger municipalities, there are judges with some technical training or expertise. Further, they know how to do their own research, where to find literature, and it is all at their disposal. They do not want to go into the case ignorant and they are the ones who are routinely assigned these cases. The assignments are not random, by the way. And if it is taking place in the Patent Court, the level of technical expertise they have on hand is quite high. So don't assume that these decisions are being made by the equivalent of someone plucked from the street, because they're not.
And for those of you who like to beat the drum of tort vampires, and so on, consider this: Your attitude is quite prevalent throughout the population. Now, juries are drawn from the general population, right? So the majority of jurors feel the same way you do, and awards are not nearly as high as you might think. In fact, if you ever take a look at types of injuries and the average awards (there are publications and services that compile these things) you'll probably find them quite reasonable.
Re:This is complicated stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Speaking as a scientist... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Speaking as a scientist... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Speaking as a scientist... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Speaking as a scientist... (Score:2, Funny)
Ah yes, all physicists spend all their free time working on string theory and finding Riemann surfaces. Can't keep us away from it with a stick!
Don't feed the trolls.