对法律背景和血迹模式分析的科学客观性的基础说明。

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 Q2 Arts and Humanities Science in Context Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.1017/S0269889722000011
W John Koolage, Lauren M Williams, Morgen L Barroso
{"title":"对法律背景和血迹模式分析的科学客观性的基础说明。","authors":"W John Koolage,&nbsp;Lauren M Williams,&nbsp;Morgen L Barroso","doi":"10.1017/S0269889722000011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the United States, scientific knowledge is brought before the courts by way of testimony - the testimony of scientific experts. We argue that this expertise is best understood <i>first</i> as related to the quality of the underlying science <i>and then</i> in terms of who delivers it. Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA), a contemporary forensic science, serves as the vaulting point for our exploration of objectivity as a metric for the quality of a science in judicial contexts. We argue that BPA fails to meet the minimal standard set by Helen Longino's social-procedural account of objectivity (1990, 2002). In light of some pressing issues for social-procedural accounts, we offer an infrastructural account of objectivity. This account offers what amounts to a friendly amendment to Longino's account and adds to the ways in which we might analyze social-procedural objectivity. Finally, we address an issue that is pressing in the legal context: given that scientific knowledge is delivered by individuals, not communities, at least in U.S. courts, we (may) need a way to evaluate individual scientific and epistemic agents. We suggest a means for making this evaluation that is derived from our infrastructural account of objectivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":49562,"journal":{"name":"Science in Context","volume":" ","pages":"101-119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An infrastructural account of scientific objectivity for legal contexts and bloodstain pattern analysis.\",\"authors\":\"W John Koolage,&nbsp;Lauren M Williams,&nbsp;Morgen L Barroso\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0269889722000011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the United States, scientific knowledge is brought before the courts by way of testimony - the testimony of scientific experts. We argue that this expertise is best understood <i>first</i> as related to the quality of the underlying science <i>and then</i> in terms of who delivers it. Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA), a contemporary forensic science, serves as the vaulting point for our exploration of objectivity as a metric for the quality of a science in judicial contexts. We argue that BPA fails to meet the minimal standard set by Helen Longino's social-procedural account of objectivity (1990, 2002). In light of some pressing issues for social-procedural accounts, we offer an infrastructural account of objectivity. This account offers what amounts to a friendly amendment to Longino's account and adds to the ways in which we might analyze social-procedural objectivity. Finally, we address an issue that is pressing in the legal context: given that scientific knowledge is delivered by individuals, not communities, at least in U.S. courts, we (may) need a way to evaluate individual scientific and epistemic agents. We suggest a means for making this evaluation that is derived from our infrastructural account of objectivity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49562,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science in Context\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"101-119\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science in Context\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889722000011\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science in Context","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889722000011","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国,科学知识是通过证词——科学专家的证词——提交法庭的。我们认为,这种专业知识最好首先与基础科学的质量有关,然后与谁提供它有关。血迹模式分析(BPA)是一门当代法医科学,它是我们探索客观性作为司法环境中科学质量衡量标准的起点。我们认为BPA没有达到Helen Longino关于客观性的社会程序描述所设定的最低标准(1990,2002)。鉴于社会程序帐户的一些紧迫问题,我们提供客观的基础设施帐户。这种说法相当于对朗吉诺的说法进行了友好的修正,并增加了我们分析社会程序客观性的方式。最后,我们解决了一个在法律背景下迫在眉睫的问题:考虑到科学知识是由个人而不是社区提供的,至少在美国法院,我们(可能)需要一种方法来评估个人的科学和认知代理人。我们建议采用一种方法来进行这种评估,这种评估来源于我们对客观性的基本描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An infrastructural account of scientific objectivity for legal contexts and bloodstain pattern analysis.

In the United States, scientific knowledge is brought before the courts by way of testimony - the testimony of scientific experts. We argue that this expertise is best understood first as related to the quality of the underlying science and then in terms of who delivers it. Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA), a contemporary forensic science, serves as the vaulting point for our exploration of objectivity as a metric for the quality of a science in judicial contexts. We argue that BPA fails to meet the minimal standard set by Helen Longino's social-procedural account of objectivity (1990, 2002). In light of some pressing issues for social-procedural accounts, we offer an infrastructural account of objectivity. This account offers what amounts to a friendly amendment to Longino's account and adds to the ways in which we might analyze social-procedural objectivity. Finally, we address an issue that is pressing in the legal context: given that scientific knowledge is delivered by individuals, not communities, at least in U.S. courts, we (may) need a way to evaluate individual scientific and epistemic agents. We suggest a means for making this evaluation that is derived from our infrastructural account of objectivity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Science in Context
Science in Context 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science in Context is an international journal edited at The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University, with the support of the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. It is devoted to the study of the sciences from the points of view of comparative epistemology and historical sociology of scientific knowledge. The journal is committed to an interdisciplinary approach to the study of science and its cultural development - it does not segregate considerations drawn from history, philosophy and sociology. Controversies within scientific knowledge and debates about methodology are presented in their contexts.
期刊最新文献
Modernism, modernity, and politics in the general history of science: Implications of Herbert Mehrtens' work, from "Vienna 1900" to the Nazi era, and beyond. Brouwer and Hausdorff: On reassessing the foundations crisis George Montandon, the Ainu and the theory of hologenesis Textual materiality and abstraction in mathematics The animal model of human disease as a core concept of medical research: Historical cases, failures, and some epistemological considerations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1