Evaluating Scientific Evidence

Abstract

Scientific evidence is crucial in a burgeoning number of litigated cases, legislative enactments, regulatory decisions, and scholarly arguments. Evaluating Scientific Evidence explores the question of what counts as scientific knowledge, a question that has become a focus of heated courtroom and scholarly debate, not only in the United States, but in other common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. Controversies are rife over what is permissible use of genetic information, whether chemical exposure causes disease, whether future dangerousness of violent or sexual offenders can be predicted, whether such time-honored methods of criminal identification (such as microscopic hair analysis, for example) have any better foundation than ancient divination rituals, among other important topics. This book examines the process of evaluating scientific evidence in both civil and criminal contexts, and explains how decisions by nonscientists that embody scientific knowledge can be improved.

AI-Integrated Science Teaching Through Facilitating Epistemic Discourse in the Classroom

“…Reliable Epistemic Process Broadly speaking, epistemic processes of science are collectively called scientific methods, which involve varying inquiry practices and skills. Scientific methods in general refer to the practical ways to find reliable answers to questions we have asked about the world around us by using evidence and constructing and testing explanations and predictions (Beecher-Monas, 2007). In AI, learning algorithms are important epistemic processes through which AI agents improve performance.…”

Gender Diversity as the Antidote to ‘Groupthink’ on Corporate Boards

“…However, she cautions that neither race nor gender diversity are necessarily a proxy for viewpoint diversity. 135 Considering that CEOs and nominating committees tend to select candidates who are similar to themselves, it is possible that they would select women candidates or candidates belonging to minority races who mimic white male characteristics. 136 Thus, while diversity would probably help reduce the chances of a board succumbing to groupthink, it must not be merely tokenistic diversity.…”

Suspect sciences? Evidentiary Problems with Emerging Technologies

“…They should not forget the lessons from the controversy over the development of DNA technologies and population statistics (Aronson, 2007;Lynch et al, 2008). Furthermore, the so-called "experience of judges" should always be tempered by rigorous published experimental research (Beecher-Monas, 2006;National Research Council, 2009).…”

“…Reticence and the difficulty of the task should not, however, deflect them from this important civic responsibility. If our criminal justice system aspires to be rational and fair, and not committed to convicting the innocent, then reliability needs to take a more central position in our admissibility jurisprudence and institutionalised forensic science practice (National Research Council, 2009;Saks & Faigman, 2008;Beecher-Monas, 2006).…”