Scientific Reasoning, P-values, and the Court

Lemuel A. Moyé ()
Additional contact information
Lemuel A. Moyé: University of Texas, Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health

Chapter 7 in Statistical Reasoning in Medicine, 2006, pp 157-165 from Springer

Abstract: 7.8 Conclusions The courts admit that they lag behind science in determining the scientific merit of a legal argument. However, in the past twenty years they have come to rely on the findings of epidemiology and biostatistics, and the court has allowed judges to see for themselves the merits of the scientific argument before a jury hears it. Many of the rules established by the Supreme Court to guide judges in these preliminary hearings are based on reproducibility, timing, and significance of the association.

Keywords: Attributable Risk; Federal Court; Expert Testimony; Defense Counsel; Appeal Court (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2006
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-0-387-46212-7_8

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/9780387462127

DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-46212-7_8

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Springer Books from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().