Legal perceptions of science and expert knowledge

Joseph Sanders*, Shari Diamond, Neil Vidmar

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    25 Scopus citations

    Abstract

    In the past half century, expert testimony has played an increasingly important role in American litigation. As the volume of expert testimony has grown, so have issues surrounding its admissibility into evidence. In the past decade, a trilogy of U.S. Supreme Court cases redefined the rules governing admissibility. This article reviews these cases and examines some of the assumptions about expert knowledge implicit in the opinions. It argues that the opinions ask judges to assume the role of scientific methodologists. Together, the 3 opinions reflect what Steven Cole calls a realist-constructivist view of science. Science is socially constructed both in the laboratory and in the wider community, but the construction is constrained by input from the empirical world.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)139-153
    Number of pages15
    JournalPsychology, Public Policy, and Law
    Volume8
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jun 2002

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Social Psychology
    • Sociology and Political Science
    • Law

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Legal perceptions of science and expert knowledge'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this