Scientific Consensus and Expert Testimony in Courts: Lessons from the Bendectin Litigation
Scientific Consensus and Expert Testimony in Courts: Lessons from the Bendectin Litigation
复制标题
法庭上的科学共识和专家证词：本德汀诉讼的教训
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Boaz Miller
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boaz Miller
科学界的共识经常被用作做出明智的公共政策决策和在法律的审判中决定对立专家证词的资源。本文包含了一个备受瞩目的Bendectin药物的争议，这是决定在法庭上，除其他外，尊重关于Bendectin的安全性的科学共识的社会认识分析。借鉴我以前开发的帐户知识为基础的共识，我认为，在这种情况下的共识不是知识为基础的，因此法院的尊重，它是没有认识上的理由。我从这一分析中得出怀疑的教训，科学共识的价值作为一个可取的和可靠的手段，解决公众生活中的科学争议。
A consensus in a scientific community is often used as a resource for making informed public-policy decisions and deciding between rival expert testimonies in legal trials. This paper contains a social-epistemic analysis of the high-profile Bendectin drug controversy, which was decided in the courtroom inter alia by deference to a scientific consensus about the safety of Bendectin. Drawing on my previously developed account of knowledge-based consensus, I argue that the consensus in this case was not knowledge based, hence courts’ deference to it was not epistemically justified. I draw sceptical lessons from this analysis regarding the value of scientific consensus as a desirable and reliable means of resolving scientific controversies in public life.