证据鉴定的制作:将化学分析方法转化为司法证据。

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 Q4 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
NTM Pub Date : 2021-09-01 Epub Date: 2021-08-02 DOI:10.1007/s00048-021-00306-7
Marcus B Carrier
{"title":"证据鉴定的制作:将化学分析方法转化为司法证据。","authors":"Marcus B Carrier","doi":"10.1007/s00048-021-00306-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article investigates the question of how forensic toxicologists established the credibility of chemical analytical methods in poisoning lawsuits in the nineteenth century. After encountering the problem of laypersons in court, forensic toxicologists attempted to find strategies to make their evidence compelling to an untrained audience. Three of these strategies are discussed here: redundancy, standard methods, and intuitive comprehensibility. Whereas redundancy was not very practical and legally prescribed standard methods were not very popular with most forensic toxicologists, intuitive comprehensibility proved effective and popular. This strategy relied on employing methods which did not require chemical knowledge to be understandable. The methods aimed to generate a visual aid and to be obvious in their results. Two forms of this strategy are discussed here: the presentation of the actual material and explicit comparison. I argue that this shift towards presenting forensic toxicology expertise as evident represents an important step in the history of forensic expertise.</p>","PeriodicalId":43143,"journal":{"name":"NTM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8440240/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Making of Evident Expertise: Transforming Chemical Analytical Methods into Judicial Evidence.\",\"authors\":\"Marcus B Carrier\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00048-021-00306-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article investigates the question of how forensic toxicologists established the credibility of chemical analytical methods in poisoning lawsuits in the nineteenth century. After encountering the problem of laypersons in court, forensic toxicologists attempted to find strategies to make their evidence compelling to an untrained audience. Three of these strategies are discussed here: redundancy, standard methods, and intuitive comprehensibility. Whereas redundancy was not very practical and legally prescribed standard methods were not very popular with most forensic toxicologists, intuitive comprehensibility proved effective and popular. This strategy relied on employing methods which did not require chemical knowledge to be understandable. The methods aimed to generate a visual aid and to be obvious in their results. Two forms of this strategy are discussed here: the presentation of the actual material and explicit comparison. I argue that this shift towards presenting forensic toxicology expertise as evident represents an important step in the history of forensic expertise.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43143,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NTM\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8440240/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NTM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-021-00306-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/8/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NTM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-021-00306-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了19世纪法医毒理学家如何在中毒诉讼中确立化学分析方法的可信度。在法庭上遇到外行人的问题后,法医毒理学家试图找到策略,使他们的证据对未经训练的听众具有说服力。这里讨论其中的三种策略:冗余、标准方法和直观的可理解性。虽然冗余不是很实用,法律规定的标准方法也不是很受大多数法医毒理学家的欢迎,但直观的可理解性被证明是有效和受欢迎的。这一策略依赖于采用不需要化学知识就能理解的方法。这些方法旨在产生一种视觉辅助,并使其结果显而易见。这里讨论了这种策略的两种形式:实际材料的呈现和明确的比较。我认为,这种向法医毒理学专业知识的转变是法医专业知识历史上重要的一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Making of Evident Expertise: Transforming Chemical Analytical Methods into Judicial Evidence.

This article investigates the question of how forensic toxicologists established the credibility of chemical analytical methods in poisoning lawsuits in the nineteenth century. After encountering the problem of laypersons in court, forensic toxicologists attempted to find strategies to make their evidence compelling to an untrained audience. Three of these strategies are discussed here: redundancy, standard methods, and intuitive comprehensibility. Whereas redundancy was not very practical and legally prescribed standard methods were not very popular with most forensic toxicologists, intuitive comprehensibility proved effective and popular. This strategy relied on employing methods which did not require chemical knowledge to be understandable. The methods aimed to generate a visual aid and to be obvious in their results. Two forms of this strategy are discussed here: the presentation of the actual material and explicit comparison. I argue that this shift towards presenting forensic toxicology expertise as evident represents an important step in the history of forensic expertise.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
NTM
NTM HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: NTM ist die größte Zeitschrift für Wissenschafts-, Technik- und Medizingeschichte im deutschen Sprachraum. Sie bietet ein internationales Forum für Forschungsbeiträge, Debatten und Rezensionen aus dem Gesamtgebiet der Wissenschafts-, Technik- und Medizingeschichte in allen Epochen und unterschiedlichen Regionen. Wir veröffentlichen innovative Beiträge, die an neuere theoretische und methodische Ansätze und Debatten anknüpfen, neues empirisches Material erschließen oder neue Forschungsfelder eröffnen. Neben der Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, der Technik und der Medizin sind auch Beiträge zur Geschichte der Geistes-, Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften willkommen. NTM erscheint vierteljährlich. Neben dem klassischen, individuellen Forschungsartikel und Buchrezensionen publiziert NTM als weitere Textgattungen das „Forum“, das „Fundstück“ sowie “Essay Reviews”: - Provokative oder auch kontroverse Beiträge stoßen im Forum Debatten und Fragen an, die unser Feld kommend prägen werden. - Das Fundstück erschließt vergessene Objekt-, Bild- oder Schriftquellen von hoher historischer Relevanz. - Essay Reviews bieten entlang von Literaturbesprechungen einen kritischen Überblick über ein entstehendes Forschungsfeld. - Außerdem erscheinen Themenhefte (4-6 Artikel) sowie Special Sections (3-4 Artikel), die ein neues Forschungsfeld abstecken bzw. dessen Potential exemplarisch aufzeigen. NTM wird seit 2018 von der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte der Wissenschaften, der Medizin, und der Technik (GWMT) herausgegeben (www.gwmt.de). Zuvor war NTM das wissenschaftliche Organ der DGGMNT (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Medizin, Naturwissenschaft en und Technik e. V.). Die Zeitschrift hat eine lange Tradition und wurde 1960 von Gerhard Harig und Alexander Mette in Leipzig gegründet. • Doppelt anonymes Begutachtungsverfahren • Mischung aus unterschiedlichen Textgattungen (Artikel, Fundstück, Forum, Essay Reviews, Rezensionen) • Publikationssprachen: Deutsch, Englisch und Französisch • Volltext-Zugriff fu¨r alle Institutionen des DEAL Konsortiums ab 2020. Weitere Informationen zu DEAL unter https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/institutional-agreements/oaforgermany-de NTM is the largest and most comprehensive journal for history of science, technology, and medicine in the German-speaking world. It offers an international forum for research articles, debates and reviews in the entire field of history of science, technology, and medicine in all epochs and various regions. The journal focuses on innovative theoretical and methodological approaches and discussions which make new empirical material or areas of research accessible. Contributions to the history of science, technology, and medicine, but also to the history of the social sciences and the humanities are welcome. NTM appears four times a year. Aside from classic individual research articles and book reviews, NTM publishes as additional text genres the “Forum”, the “Lost & Found”, and also “Essay Reviews”: - In the Forum, provocative or controversial contributions encourage debates and questions, that are set to shape the future of our field. - Lost & Found aims at exploring forgotten objects and other sources of great historical relevance. - Essay Reviews provide a critical overview of emerging research fields along literature reviews. - Moreover, NTM publishes Special Issues (4 – 6 articles) as well as Special Sections (3-4 articles), are aiming at defining new research fields or demonstrating their potential. NTM has been published under the auspices of the „Gesellschaft für die Geschichte der Wissenschaften, der Medizin, und der Technik (GWMT)”, (www.gwmt.de) since 2008. Before, NTM used to be the scientific body of the DGGMNT (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Medizin, Naturwissenschaft en und Technik e. V.). The journal has a long tradition and was founded in 1960 by Gerhard Harig and Alexander Mette in Leipzig. • Double-blind peer review process • Mixture of different text genres (articles, lost & found, forum, essay reviews, reviews) • Papers are accepted for publication in German, English, and French • Open access to the full-text version under country-specific conditions Bibliographie N.T.M. Zuerst erschienen 1960 / first published in 1960 Namensänderung ab 1.1.2008 / renamed in 2008 1 Volumen pro Jahr, 4 Hefte pro Volumen / 1 vol. per year, 4 issues per volume ca. 500 Seiten pro Volumen / 500 pages per volume Format: 15.5 x 23.5 cm ISSN 0036-6978 (print) ISSN 1420-9144 (electronic)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信