Herbert M. Kritzer
University of Minnesota Law School
Law and Contemporary Problems, 2007
William Mitchell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 86
Much of the commentary about the Supreme Court’s Daubert Trilogy focuses on the disconnect between contemporary understandings of science and the Court’s apparent acceptance of a Popperian epistemology. This paper takes a somewhat different tact, considering differences in how persuasion is conducted in the courtroom and within the scientific community. These differences are analyzed along four dimensions: data sources, use of evidence, mindset, and goal of inquiry.