UC San Diego
PHIL 245
Winter 2015
Friday, 1-3:50 pm, HSS 7077
|
Craig Callender
ccallender@ucsd.edu
Office hours: Friday 12-1 pm in HSS 7010 and by appointment.
Nancy Cartwright
nancy.cartwright@durham.ac.uk
Office hours: Thursday, 2:15-3:15 pm and Friday, 12-1 pm in HSS 7023
|
For
decades philosophers of science tried to solve the theoretical “demarcation”
problem, the question of what in principle separates science from
pseudo-science. The Positivists, Popper, and Lakatos each offered notable
answers. More pressing than this theoretical problem, however, is the practical
demarcation problem faced daily in the courts. Who can count as an
expert witness? How do and should judges decide? What types of evidence are
permitted? Fingerprints? Lie detectors? How should courts react when the
science itself is especially uncertain, e.g., in so-called shaken baby
syndrome. What kind of intellectual property can be patented? How does the law decide
whether to allow patents for chemical processes, computer code, or novel
organisms? A law may require ‘due diligence’ or instead spell out a number of
concrete obligations. Can work in philosophy of science help us see advantages
and disadvantages of each practice? The law must regularly decide issues of
causation, for instance, in toxic torts. How is this handled, and can
philosophy of science help? All of these questions are tremendously important
to individuals and society. Individual criminal convictions, massive
consequences in business, medical procedures, and large scale public policy all
hang in the balance.
This
seminar will confront these questions and others. We'll read work in philosophy
of science, epistemology, law reviews, science studies, and a few landmark
Supreme Court decisions. To help us through some of the specialties, we may invite
a few experts in law and philosophy to visit.
Grading and Expectations
Students should be prepared to discuss the material assigned
each seminar. They should also actively pursue questions of interest at the intersection
of science, evidence and the law and present in N (tbd) meetings. Students
should expect to do presentations on some of the topics below, but they are not
constrained to these. Eyewitness testimony fingerprinting, patenting genes,
living organisms, body parts, agriculture, and issues surrounding life, death,
and sex all offer great additional topics.
Grades will be determined by a 4000 word paper to be e-mailed to Nancy and Craig by 9:30 AM on Thursday, March 19.
For graduate students in Philosophy, this seminar can be counted toward the Philosophy of Science distribution requirement.
Readings
The list of topics is tentative and their order is TBD (except for the Introduction in week 1).
- Introduction (week 1):
- Resnick, “A Pragmatic Approach to the Demarcation Problem". [LINK]
- Jasanoff, “The Law’s Construction of Expertise”, in Science at the Bar. [PDF]
- Haack, “Irreconcilable Differences? The Troubled Marriage of Science and the
Law”, in Evidence Matters. [PDF]
- Expert Testimony I:
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Be sure to read both the majority
and dissenting opinions. [LINK]
- Haack, “Trial and Error: Two Confusions in Daubert”, in Evidence Matters. [PDF]
- Solomon and Hackett,
“Setting Boundaries Between Science and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.” [LINK]
- Expert Testimony II:
- Bernstein, “Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the
(Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution”, [LINK]
- Cranor, “The Dual Legacy of
Daubert v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals: Replacing Junk Science with Insidious
Science”. [PDF]
- Background: Murrie et al., “Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That
Retained Them?”. [LINK]
- Peer Review and Conflict-of-Interest Policies:
- Haack, “Peer Review and
Publication: Lessons for Lawyers”. [PDF]
- Elliott “Financial
Conflicts of Interest and Criteria for Research Credibility". [LINK]
- Background: Jefferson et al., “Editorial Peer Review for Improving the Quality of Reports of Biomedical Studies”. [LINK]
- Shaken Baby Syndrome:
- Squier, "Questioning Shaken Baby Syndrome; An Institutional Response to Scientific Uncertainty". [PDF]
- Tuerkheimer, "The Next Innocence Project: Shaken Baby Syndrome and the Criminal Courts". [PDF]
- Tuerkheimer, "Criminal Justice at a Crossroads: Science-Dependent Prosecution and the Problem of Epistemic Contingency". [PDF]
- Tuerkheimer, "Science-Dependent Prosecution and the Problem of Epistemic Contingency: A Study of Shaken Baby Syndrome". [PDF]
- Abstraction I:
- Lucy, "Abstraction and the Rule of Law". [LINK]
- O'Neill, "Abstraction, Idealization and Ideology". [LINK]
- O'Neill, "The Power of Example". [LINK]
- Background: Winther, "The Limits of Abstraction: Theory and Practice in the Natural and Moral Sciences". [PDF]
- Abstraction II:
- O'Neill, "Justice, Gender & International
Boundaries". [PDF]
- Smith Freehills and Truesdale, "Resistance
is Futile: Co-operation, Enforcement and Principles Based Regulation". [LINK]
- Black, Hopper and Band, "Making a Success of Principles-based Regulation". [PDF]
- Toxic Tort and Causation:
- Cranor, “How the Law Promotes Ignorance: The Case of
Industrial Chemicals and Their Risks”. [PDF]
- Cranor, “The Science Veil over Toxic
Tort Law: How Should Scientific Evidence Be Used in Toxic Tort Law?”. [LINK]
- Haack, Selection from chapters 9, 10, 11. [PDF]
- Jasanoff, “Toxic Torts and the
Politics of Causation”. [PDF]
- Intellectual Property Law and Science:
- Guest Visit: Susan Payne, patent
attorney.
- Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. [PDF]
- Background: Eisenberg, “Biotech Patents: Looking
backward While Looking Forward”. [LINK]
|
|