Epistemology in the courtroom: a little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing.

Abstract

Core epistemological questions-questions about what we know, how we know it, and when we are justified in saying we know it-have a long and deep history. The US Supreme Court broached the subject in the 1993 decision Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, with references to Hempel, Popper, and other scholars. We comment here on the articles of Rothman and Greenland, who are scientists, and Haack, who is a philosopher. Their views suggest that questions of causation are neither as simple nor as difficult as many scientists and philosophers have made them.