by Kenneth R. Foster and Peter W. Huber
What is "scientific knowledge" and when is it reliable? These deceptively simple questions have been the source of endless controversy. In 1993, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling on the use of scientific evidence in federal courts: federal judges may admit expert scientific evidence only if it merits the label "scientific knowledge." The testimony must be scientifically "reliable" and "valid."
In this book -- organized around the criteria set out in the 1993 Daubert ruling -- Foster and Huber consider such issues as "fit" (whether a plausible theory relates specific facts to the larger factual issues in contention), the falsifiability of scientific claims, scientific error, reliability in science (particularly in fields such as epidemiology and toxicology), the meaning of "scientific validity," peer review and the problem of boundary setting, and the risks of confusion and prejudice when scientific material is presented to a jury.
In the conclusion, Foster and Huber attempt to reconcile the need for workable rules of evidence with the views of scientific validity and reliability that emerge from scientific and other disciplines.
Kenneth R. Foster is an Associate Professor of Bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania. Peter W. Huber is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.