The journal of philosophy, science & law最新文献

{"title":"Human(e) Science? Demarcation, Law, and 'Scientific Whaling' in Whaling in the Antarctic","authors":"Daniella McCahey, S. Cole","doi":"10.5840/JPSL20151514","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPSL20151514","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyzes a recent case in which a court, like the Daubert Court, was asked to demarcate legitimate from illegitimate science. The court was the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and it was asked by the state of Australia to find the state of Japan in violation of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling because of its licensing of a research program that engaged in killing whales ostensibly “for purposes of scientific research.” Australia premised a good portion of its argument on a four-part definition of “scientific research,” reminiscent of the four notorious “Daubert criteria,” and the claim that the Japanese research program, “JARPA II,” failed to comply with this definition. The paper suggests that the Court’s judgment, which forced Japan to temporarily cease whaling, illustrates the merits for courts of avoiding the temptation to engage in demarcation exercises.","PeriodicalId":88325,"journal":{"name":"The journal of philosophy, science & law","volume":"4 1","pages":"37-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90554532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reflections on Daubert: A Look Back at the Supreme Court’s Decision","authors":"J. Borenstein, C. Henderson","doi":"10.5840/JPSL20151511","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPSL20151511","url":null,"abstract":"The Daubert Case Daubert, a civil case, hinged on the validity of expert opinion on the scientific methodology used to determine the alleged causal link between an anti-nausea drug, Bendectin, and fetal birth defects. A key issue before the Court was whether the socalled “Frye test,” which emerged from Frye v. United States (1923), was the appropriate means for determining the admissibility of expert testimony or whether the Federal Rules of Evidence enacted in 1975 superseded Frye.","PeriodicalId":88325,"journal":{"name":"The journal of philosophy, science & law","volume":"93 1","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89070426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Falsifiability Revisited: Popper, Daubert, and Kuhn","authors":"M. Notturno","doi":"10.5840/JPSL20151512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPSL20151512","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":88325,"journal":{"name":"The journal of philosophy, science & law","volume":"327 1","pages":"5-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/JPSL20151512","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72524735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An English Daubert? Law, Forensic Science and Epistemic Deference","authors":"T. Ward","doi":"10.5840/JPSL20151513","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPSL20151513","url":null,"abstract":"A test for the admissibility of expert evidence, partly derived from Daubert, has recently been introduced into English criminal law by the unusual mechanism of a Practice Direction. This article compares the Daubert trilogy and the English Practice Direction as responses to the problem of epistemic deference by juries to experts. Juries are often justified in deferring to experts as to the relevance of the underlying evidence examined by the expert, including what inferences can be drawn from it. There is a concern, however, that juries may also defer to experts’ claims about the weight of their own evidence: how strongly or confidently those inferences can be stated. Overly deferential jurors may place excessive weight on forensic science evidence that rests on shaky foundations. The new English admissibility regime (drawing on recommendations by the Law Commission) appears better tailored than Daubert to address this issue about the strength of inferences presented by expert witnesses. As a result, however, it places considerable demands in judges, advocates and expert witnesses, and how successful it will be in practice remains to be seen. Introduction Until very recently, England and Wales had nothing like a Daubert test for admissibility of expert evidence. Civil judges, who normally decide cases without juries, play an active ‘gatekeeping’ role but it is focused explicitly on casemanagement and cost reduction – which are arguably the real aims of Daubert (Jacob 2009; Faigman 2013). In the criminal courts there have been few reported decisions to exclude any kind of expert evidence except that of psychiatrists or psychologists. Effective 7 October 2014, however, an admissibility test recognizably derived from Daubert has been introduced into the criminal courts by the somewhat unusual mechanism (for such a significant change) of a Practice Direction issued by the Lord Chief Justice (Thomas 2014a). As Lord Thomas has acknowledged, the Practice Direction amounts to “a novel way of implementing an excellent report” by the Law Commission, an advisory body whose proposals for a new statutory admissibility test were rejected by the government (Thomas 2014b, 6). The Commission’s report, in turn, was a response to the recommendation of a parliamentary committee that an admissibility test based on Daubert was needed to reduce the risks posed by unreliable forensic science or medical evidence (House of Commons 2005). Those risks had been highlighted by a series of notorious miscarriages of justice, including major cases of terrorism in the","PeriodicalId":88325,"journal":{"name":"The journal of philosophy, science & law","volume":"12 1","pages":"26-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87837459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Scrutinizing Ashley X: Presumed Medical “Solutions” vs. Real Social Adaptation","authors":"W. Peace, Claire Roy","doi":"10.5840/JPSL20141439","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPSL20141439","url":null,"abstract":"At the end of 2006 Daniel Gunther and Douglas Diekema published “Attenuating Growth in Children with Profound Developmental Disability: A New Approach to an Old Dilemma” in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine that caused a storm of controversy. Ill prepared for the spotlight and intense media interest, Ashley X’s parents complicated matters in January of 2007 by posting a blog about their daughter and children like her deemed “pillow angels”. It is our belief that Diekema, Ashley X’s parents, and proponents of the Ashley Treatment, now referred to as growth attenuation, are disingenuous. On the one hand they collectively argue the Ashley Treatment was about one profoundly cognitively and physically disabled child and yet simultaneously promote the treatment for other “pillow angels.”","PeriodicalId":88325,"journal":{"name":"The journal of philosophy, science & law","volume":"100 1","pages":"33-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91179439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Sexual Intimacy, Social Justice, and Severe Disabilities: Should Fair Equality of Opportunity in Health Extend to Surrogate Partner Therapy?","authors":"K. Mintz","doi":"10.5840/JPSL20141437","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPSL20141437","url":null,"abstract":"The 2012 film The Sessions tells the story of a man with polio who loses his virginity by undergoing Surrogate Partner Therapy (SPT). In light of ensuing controversy surrounding the legal and moral status of SPT, this article uses Norman Daniels’ framework of fair equality of opportunity in health to argue that SPT is a legitimate form of treatment for sexual dysfunctions and should be evaluated alongside other such treatments. I begin by showing how sexual dysfunctions constitute deviations in normal species functioning. I then show that sexual capacities are a matter of fair equality of opportunity because they affect the ability to cultivate the sexual intimacy that is crucial for forming a family and often necessary for maintaining a healthy one. Recognizing that some might object to SPT as a form of prostitution, I proceed by showing how the treatment might avoid some of the objections raised against prostitution, and conclude by affirming that societies committed to fair equality of opportunity in health should work to make SPT legal and safe.","PeriodicalId":88325,"journal":{"name":"The journal of philosophy, science & law","volume":"14 1","pages":"4-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77748863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Expanding Opportunities for People with Disabilities: Promoting a More Cautious Approach","authors":"Yvette E. Pearson","doi":"10.5840/JPSL20141436","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPSL20141436","url":null,"abstract":"The articles in this special issue on disability demonstrate the importance of attending closely to the experiences of individuals with disabilities in making decisions whether to use medical, psychological, or social interventions that may affect the person’s identity and alter subsequent experiences. Though each article focuses on the problems or merits of different types of interventions—cochlear implants, surrogate partner therapy (SPT), and growth attenuation—all of the articles draw the reader’s attention to the need to reconsider the medical model of disability and attend to the potentially corrective value of the social (or psychosocial) model of disability. The latter model of disability emphasizes the impact of prevailing social attitudes and institutions on the welfare of individuals with disabilities, while the former, with its tendency to pathologize deviations from typical species function, seems to provide a more “deterministic” and often myopic lens through which to view disability.","PeriodicalId":88325,"journal":{"name":"The journal of philosophy, science & law","volume":"11 1","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87512425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Book Review: Emerging Pervasive Information and Communication Technologies (PICT)","authors":"Thomas M. Powers","doi":"10.5840/JPSL20141425","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPSL20141425","url":null,"abstract":"For the reader, this arrangement provides plenty of actual or near-term scenarios and applications of pervasive (some would say ‘ubiquitous’) information and communication technology (PICT), before the moral rules and principles that could be applied to them are directly considered. But make no mistake about it: the consideration of normative issues is abundant in the earlier chapters, and this is a real strength of the book. The less philosophically-inclined reader could easily benefit from the consideration of the applications, and yet reject the later theoretical analyses. Likewise, the two concluding theoretical essays could stand alone as contributions to the ethics of IT. But the essays as a group are best read as an arranged narrative—one that considers the ethical dimensions of technologies, takes account of points of intersection through the book, and then elicits the rules and principles to address these dimensions. Pimple’s introductory first chapter gives a brief overview of each subsequent essay, and is a useful guide for the reader who may want to skim or skip around based on particular interests. In the introduction, he describes the uniting framework for the ethical inquiries to come as one of “anticipatory ethics”—which contains an expectation that work in ethics can influence emerging technologies and the socio-technical systems in which they are embedded. This is a laudable goal, but one wonders immediately if a family of technologies that is both emerging and pervasive—and overwhelmingly favored by world trends in global trade, consumerism, and the rhetoric of efficiency—can really be altered, significantly, by scholarship on ethics. In essence, the problem is that, by the","PeriodicalId":88325,"journal":{"name":"The journal of philosophy, science & law","volume":"11 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79218134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Recent Questions in Responsible Conduct of Research","authors":"Levi B. Wood","doi":"10.5840/JPSL20141411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPSL20141411","url":null,"abstract":"The global research enterprise has seen extensive technological, social, and financial changes in the last two decades that have dramatically changed the face of academic research. While many of these changes have had a tremendously positive impact on research progress, many of them have raised new questions about how to ensure that research is conducted responsibly. In addition, there have been some high-profile cases of error and fabrication in published works that might have been caught earlier if the enterprise had better safeguards in place. There is an ongoing discussion within the research enterprise about whether and how to establish new guidelines to ensure the integrity of the research process within this shifting environment. In this article, I survey key changes in the research environment that have opened up new questions about how to best ensure the integrity of the research process. Introduction The U.S. academic research community was forced to address issues relating to the responsible conduct of research (RCR) in the late 1980s in response to numerous allegations of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP) in federally funded research projects (Wheeler 1991). The first document to formally address issues of RCR, give guidelines defining research misconduct, and provide recommendations for how to establish institutional practices protecting against falsification of the research record was the 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process published by the National Academies (NAS 1992). The report defined FFP as research misconduct; it also identified a collection of questionable research practices, such as the inappropriate use of statistical methods, which must be avoided to protect the research record, but these practices do not rise to the level of misconduct. The 1992 report addressed a wide range of issues in RCR, ranging from FFP, to data and record storage, to treatment of subordinates. While all of these issues and associated recommendations are still applicable today, the research enterprise has seen important social, technological, and financial changes during the last two decades that raise important new questions in the RCR realm.","PeriodicalId":88325,"journal":{"name":"The journal of philosophy, science & law","volume":"15 1","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84457893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Responsible Research in an International Laboratory: Personal Perspectives from a Lab Member and Principal Investigator","authors":"W. Polacheck, R. Kamm","doi":"10.5840/JPSL20141412","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPSL20141412","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":88325,"journal":{"name":"The journal of philosophy, science & law","volume":"28 1","pages":"13-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75010447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}