DOCSLIB.ORG

Chemistry 190: Special Seminar in Chemistry “Science, Society, and the Skeptic: Becoming a Critical Consumer of Everyday Science”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chemistry 190: Special Seminar in Chemistry “Science, Society, and the Skeptic: Becoming a Critical Consumer of Everyday Science” Chemistry 190: Special Seminar in Chemistry “Science, Society, and the Skeptic: Becoming a Critical Consumer of Everyday Science” Fall Semester 2013 Monday/Wednesday 3:30-4:45 p.m. Kenan Laboratories Room B121 Instructor: Ms. Lauren Jarocha [email protected] GRC: Mr. Trey Archer [email protected] Office: Caudill Laboratories Room 010 Phone: 919-962-1694 Instructor Office Hours: 9-10 AM on Tuesdays in the Kenan Science Library, or by appointment GRC office hours: TBA Email policy: If you would like a timely response to your email, please be sure to put “Chem 190” in the subject line of all messages for this course. Science impacts our lives on a daily basis. We encounter the results of scientific research every day. We may not always notice it, and our science classes haven’t always prepared us to know what to do with that science when we run into it. Advertiser frequently use scientific sounding claims to try to sell us a product. The news reports on scientific research with the intent to inform us and sometimes even scare us. Movies and television use scientific concepts to entertain us. The question is, is all this “science” actually science at all? How do you know if you encounter solid scientific results when junk science and pseudoscientific claims are everywhere? It turns out that you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to sort through the noise and use scientific thinking to make informed decisions about your life, health, and technology. Course Goals for Chem 190: Students should be able to: • Explain the basic realities and limitations of the way scientific research is conducted • Identify claims in the media that can be evaluated scientifically • Develop a conceptual framework and working knowledge of resources that can be used to evaluate those scientific claims for validity • Identify stakeholders in scientific debates and the bias that affects their positions • Recognize the tools, tricks, and logical fallacies that can be used to lead our thinking astray • Differentiate between science, junk science, pathological science, pseudoscience, and fraudulent science Required Readings: Lies, Damned Lies, and Science: How to Sort Through the Noise Around Global Warming, the Latest Health Claims, and Other Scientific Controversies by Sherry Seethaler (ISBN-10: 0132849445) Why People Believe Weird Things: Psuedoscience, Supersition, and Other Confusions of Our Time by Michael Shermer (ISBN-10: 0805070893) Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert L. Park (ISBN-10: 0195147103) How to Succeed in this Class: The primary goal of this course is to help you become a better critical consumer of science. To do that, we need to ask the questions: How do you encounter science in your everyday life? What tools do you need to evaluate that scientific information to the best of your ability? This is a science course that is less about memorizing scientific facts, and more about the way you process and evaluate scientific information. It is a skill that requires practice. For this reason, you are expected to take an active part in the learning process in this course. The interactive (and I hope, interesting) nature of this course will make attendance and participation necessary for you to achieve the course goals. Attendance Policy: All graded work will be based on information covered, explained, discussed, and assigned during class. Class attendance is therefore extremely important. All absences must be communicated to me in writing prior to the date of the absence, and the absence must be approved by me prior to the absence to be considered excused. A total of two unexcused absences will result in a failing grade for the course. Class participation: Since this is a seminar course, a healthy portion of your grade will be based upon participation in class discussions and activities. You are expected to come to class prepared by doing the necessary reading, thinking, and researching so that you may fully participate in discussions for that day. Laptop and cell phone policy: In order to succeed in this class, I expect you to take your coursework seriously. Class time should be devoted to the topics and materials relevant to the course subject and goals. Because we will often be dealing with media presentations of science, videos, TV commercials, news articles, and other digital media, I will not ban the use of a personal laptop in the classroom if it is being used to enhance and contribute to our discussion or facilitate research. Personal calls, texting, social media, surfing, and other online activity during the class period that is not relevant to course discussion or is distracting from the learning in the classroom is not acceptable and will impact your participation grade. Course Topics: The list below contains some of the topics that will be raised by the course material and discussion throughout the semester. We will attempt to tackle these topics from a critical and scientific perspective. This list is not exhaustive, and I encourage you to bring your own topics and questions to class. Health and Beauty – homeopathic medicine, faith healing, herbal remedies, aroma therapy, acupuncture, anti-aging, diet fads, cancer and its link to cell phones/wifi/powerlines/plastics/coffee consumption/etc., the link between autism and vaccinations, magnet therapy, polywater, urine therapy Cultural and media- Science based cults, animal rights and research, pseudohistory, scientific journalism and reporting, science and the scientist in the news, movies, music, internet, tv, etc. Science and Technology-global warming, cold fusion, genetically modified organisms, perpetual motion, space exploration Supernatural and the Occult- ghost hunting, ESP, telekinesis and psychic phenomenon, astrology, UFO sightings, alien abductions, crop circles, cryptozoology Class room conduct: Some of the topics that will be covered in this class can be sensitive subject. The very nature of the course will have us talking about some topics that may be intimately related to participants’ personal beliefs and practices. We will not shy away from discussing such topics, but all students are expected to maintain a respectful and accepting atmosphere that will help foster discussion. Grading: Participation: 20% Written assignments: 35% This will be divided between three equally weighted assignments Total for in-class presentations: 45% Divided into 12%, 15%, and 18% allotments for the first, second, and third presentation, respectively Assignments: This is a science seminar that was designed to include active participation in research. To that end, many of the assignments in this course will require some form of independent research and reporting your findings back to the class. This will take the form of both short written assignments and in class presentations In this research-exposure course, you will be working with a Graduate Research Consultant, Trey Archer, who will assist you in these research projects. The GRC program is sponsored by the Office for Undergraduate Research (www.unc.edu/depts/our). I encourage you to visit this website to see other ways that you might engage in research, scholarship and creative performance while you are at Carolina. Written assignments: This course will include three written assignments based on topics and issues raised by the required reading. All written assignments must be received electronically by the beginning of the class period in which the assignment is due. Attendance is still expected on class days when assignments are due. Typically, writing assignments will be approximately one page in length using 12 point Times New Roman Font, 1.5 line spacing, and one inch margins on all sides. The deadlines for written assignments will be announced no less than one week before the due date. In class presentations: There will be three in class presentations in this course. Two will be individual presentations and one will be a group presentation. Details of the presentation assignments will be given at least one week in advance of the presentation. Assignment deadlines: The due date for assignments will be clearly spelled out at the time the assignment is given. Late work will be penalized with deductions from the total points available as follows: 1 Day Late: 10% 2 Days Late: 20% 3 Days Late: 40% 4 Days Late: 80% 5 Days Late: 100% Course Schedule: Because of the nature of this seminar class, the topics of discussion and the length of time that discussion requires will be based on class interest. The course schedule is designed to be flexible to allow us to explore current scientific controversies as they arise, media presentations of science as they are published, pseudoscience and junk science that is interesting and relevant to the participants, and the scientific concerns and topics in the course materials. The exact dates for the course topics are, therefore, flexible, but are provide here as a guideline. Monday Topic Wednesday Topic August 21th Introduction to the course. What is science? August 26th The Scientific Method August 28th Peer Review September 2nd Labor Day: NO CLASS September 4th First Oral Presentation September 9th First Oral Presentation September 11th First Oral Presentation September 16th Seethaler Discussion September 18th Seethaler Discussion September 23rd Pseudoscience Special Topic September 25th Journalism and Science September 30th What the #$*!? October 2nd What the #$*! October 7th Shermer Discussion October 9th Second Presentation October 14th Second Presentation October 16th Second Presentation October 21st Shermer Discussion October 23rd Pseudoscience Special Topic October 28th Morehead Field Trip October 30th Outer space: The Intersection of Science and Entertainment November 4th The Science of Beer: An November 6th Pseudoscience Special Topic interview with a Chemist November 11th Park Discussion November 13th Park Discussion November 18th Final Presentation November 20th Final Presentation November 25th Final Presentation November 27th Thanksgiving: NO CLASS December 2nd Final Presentation December 4th Final Presentation .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Junk Science”: the Criminal Cases
    Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications 1993 “Junk Science”: The Criminal Cases Paul C. Giannelli Case Western University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Evidence Commons, and the Litigation Commons Repository Citation Giannelli, Paul C., "“Junk Science”: The Criminal Cases" (1993). Faculty Publications. 393. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/393 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/93/8401-0105 THE jouRNAL OF CRIMINAL LAw & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 84, No. I Copyright© 1993 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. "JUNK SCIENCE": THE CRIMINAL CASES PAUL C. GIANNELLI* l. INTRODUCTION Currently, the role of expert witnesses in civil trials is under vigorous attack. "Expert testimony is becoming an embarrassment to the law of evidence," notes one commentator. 1 Articles like those entitled "Experts up to here"2 and "The Case Against Expert Wit­ nesses"3 appear in Forbes and Fortune. Terms such as "junk science," "litigation medicine," "fringe science," and "frontier science" are in vogue.4 Physicians complain that "[l]egal cases can now be de­ cided on the type of evidence that the scientific community rejected decades ago."5 A. THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE The expert testimony provisions of the Federal Rules of Evi­ dence are the focal point of criticism.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Ancestry Testing Among White Nationalists Aaron
    When Genetics Challenges a Racist’s Identity: Genetic Ancestry Testing among White Nationalists Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan, UCLA Abstract This paper considers the emergence of new forms of race-making using a qualitative analysis of online discussions of individuals’ genetic ancestry test (GAT) results on the white nationalist website Stormfront. Seeking genetic confirmation of personal identities, white nationalists often confront information they consider evidence of non-white or non- European ancestry. Despite their essentialist views of race, much less than using the information to police individuals’ membership, posters expend considerable energy to repair identities by rejecting or reinterpreting GAT results. Simultaneously, however, Stormfront posters use the particular relationships made visible by GATs to re-imagine the collective boundaries and constitution of white nationalism. Bricoleurs with genetic knowledge, white nationalists use a “racial realist” interpretive framework that departs from canons of genetic science but cannot be dismissed simply as ignorant. Introduction Genetic ancestry tests (GATs) are marketed as a tool for better self-knowledge. Purporting to reveal aspects of identity and relatedness often unavailable in traditional genealogical records, materials promoting GATs advertise the capacity to reveal one’s genetic ties to ethnic groups, ancient populations and historical migrations, and even famous historical figures. But this opportunity to “know thyself” can come with significant risks. Craig Cobb had gained public notoriety and cult status among white supremacists for his efforts to buy up property in Leith, ND, take over the local government, and establish a white supremacist enclave. In 2013, Cobb was invited on The Trisha Show, a daytime talk show, to debate these efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Right and Left, Partisanship Predicts (Asymmetric) Vulnerability to Misinformation
    Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review1 February 2021, Volume 1, Issue 7 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Reprints and permissions: [email protected] DOI: https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-55 Website: misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu Research Article Right and left, partisanship predicts (asymmetric) vulnerability to misinformation We analyze the relationship between partisanship, echo chambers, and vulnerability to online misinformation by studying news sharing behavior on Twitter. While our results confirm prior findings that online misinformation sharing is strongly correlated with right-leaning partisanship, we also uncover a similar, though weaker, trend among left-leaning users. Because of the correlation between a user’s partisanship and their position within a partisan echo chamber, these types of influence are confounded. To disentangle their effects, we performed a regression analysis and found that vulnerability to misinformation is most strongly influenced by partisanship for both left- and right-leaning users. Authors: Dimitar Nikolov (1), Alessandro Flammini (1), Filippo Menczer (1) Affiliations: (1) Observatory on Social Media, Indiana University, USA How to cite: Nikolov, D., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2021). Right and left, partisanship predicts (asymmetric) vulnerability to misinformation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 1(7). Received: October 12th, 2020. Accepted: December 15th, 2020. Published: February 15th, 2021. Research questions • Is exposure to more
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Medicine As Counter-Conduct: Therapeutic Spaces and Medical Rationality in Contemporary Romania
    STUDIA UBB SOCIOLOGIA, 60 (LX), 2, 2015, pp. 5-19 DOI: 10.1515/subbs-2015-0007 ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE AS COUNTER-CONDUCT: THERAPEUTIC SPACES AND MEDICAL RATIONALITY IN CONTEMPORARY ROMANIA CORINA RUSU1 Abstract. This study analyses the practice of medical pluralism in contemporary Romania, addressing the phenomenon of alternative medicine through the Foucauldian concept of counter-conduct. Employing in-depth interviews with general and alternative practitioners from two towns in Transylvania, and participant observations in spaces where they practice their knowledge, I describe how certain discursive acts reformulate the body and the subject- patient. Alternative therapists construct their practice in direct opposition to several parameters of biomedicine, such as the logic of diagnosis, treatment, and the praxis of patient’s visit to the general practitioner’s office, discussed in the paper. They define their approach as psychosomatic, and set-up the medical space as a confessional space, envisioning a holistic corporeality and the idea of the “inner doctor” in each patient. This conduct would supposedly make the subject “active” and “empowered”, as opposed to the “passive” patient succumbed to the diagnosis of conventional doctors. Keywords: counter-conduct, biomedicine, alternative medicines, patient subject Introduction Postsocialist Romania, especially in the last decade, opened up to a breadth of non-conventional medicines, also named holistic, alternative or complementary medicines. Romania accommodates a wide range of such practices, mainly clustered around big cities; in 2009, 7% of the population resorted to alternative medicines within the last 12 months (Dragan and Madsen, 2011). The possibility of diversity made way for new therapeutic figures on the medical market – naturopaths, homeopaths, osteopaths, Reiki therapists, modern shamans - all of them working next to family practitioners, popular healers and plastic surgeons.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy-353-Syllabus
    Philosophy 353: Introduction to Philosophy of Science Fall, 2014 TuTh 4-5:15 Bartlett 206 Instructor: Phillip Bricker Office: 370 Bartlett Hall e-mail: [email protected] Course website: blogs.umass.edu/bricker/teaching/phil-353-introduction-to-philosophy- of-science Office Hours: Thursday 2-3, and by appointment Course Prerequisites. None. Course Requirements. A take-home midterm exam and a take-home final exam, each worth 30% of the grade. Four two-page writing assignments on the readings, each worth 10%. Class participation can boost your grade up to one step (e.g., from a B to a B+, or an A- to an A). Readings. The only required book is Theory and Reality, by Peter Godfrey-Smith. It should be at the UMass book store. It is available new from AmaZon for $24.44. All other readings will be put on my course website, whose address is above. The readings are password protected and the password is: phiscie. Course Description and Schedule. The exact schedule is not set in advance. For the first 8-10 weeks, we will work through the first 10 chapters of the text, Theory and Reality, complemented by readings from the philosophers being discussed. This is a historically oriented tour of the approaches that philosophers have taken towards science over the past hundred years. It begins with logical positivism and its evolution into a less strict empiricism. It continues with the turn towards the history and the sociology of science taken by Kuhn and Lakatos. It concludes with a brief look at feminist and post- modernist critiques of science (“the science wars”) of the past twenty years.
    [Show full text]
  • Adjustments, Strokes and Errors in Medicine by Dr
    Adjustments, strokes and errors in medicine by Dr. C. Kent Page 1 of 5 Read and respected by more doctors of chiropractic than any other professional publication in the world. A publication of the World Chiropractic Alliance Research on Purpose by Dr. Christopher Kent Adjustments, strokes and errors in medicine In both Canada and the United Stares, reports have appeared in the popular media suggesting that chiropractic "manipulation" of the cervical spine is associated with strokes. Some writers have suggested that such procedures be banned. These allegations require a swift and vigorous response. In his book, "Galileo's Revenge," attorney Peter Huber describes "junk science" as "A hodgepodge of biased data, spurious inference, and logical legerdemain...It is a catalog of every conceivable kind of error: data dredging, wishful thinking, truculent dogmatism, and, now and again, outright fraud." (1) An excellent example of "junk science" is the popular notion that chiropractic adjustments cause strokes. Although individual case reports of adverse events following "manipulation" have been reported in the medical literature for decades, recent exposés in the popular media seem to have led some individuals to accept this premise at face value. Careful examination will reveal that these individuals have fallen prey to a classic case of "junk science." A common error in logic is equating correlation with cause and effect. The fact that a temporal relationship exists between two events does not mean that one caused the other. As Keating (2) explained, "To mistake temporal contiguity of two phenomena for causation is a classic fallacy of reasoning known as 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc,' from the Latin meaning 'after this, therefore caused by this.'" Consider the application of this fallacy in the case of chiropractic adjustments and strokes.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    CURRICULUM VITAE Robert A. Bailey, DC, DABFP, CICE, DABCC, CIRE 14920 Hickory Greens Court Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Telephone 812-890-7121 [email protected] Website: www.drrobertbailey.com Last Updated September of 2015 Dr. Robert A. Bailey EDUCATION Logan College of Chiropractic Chesterfield, Missouri Completed 4 academic yrs with 4,605 hrs of in-class training Graduated 1977 MILITARY SERVICE U.S. Army Medical Corps (91P20) 1969-1972 Honorable Discharge TRAINING AND CERTIFICATIONS American Board of Forensic Professionals (DABFP) Certificate number: 0034 Expiration date: 12/18/2016 1 American Board of Chiropractic Consultants (DABCC) Certificate number: 124 Expiration date: 10/12/2016 American Board of Independent Medical Examiners (ABIME) Certificate number: 07-00162 Certified Impairment Rating Examiner (CIRE) Examination hosted by Brigham & Associates. Certified by the National Association of Disability Evaluating Professionals (NADEP) 2004 Successfully completed training in the use of the 6th Edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment entitled, ‘Learning the New Standard’ March 2008. Learning the New Standard: 6th Edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, taught by Christopher R. Brigham, MD, Senior Contributing Editor for the Sixth Edition. American Board of Independent Medical Examiners (ABIME) AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th ed. With Review of Principles of Disability Assessment, Chicago, Illinois, taught by Dr. Mohammed Ranavaya. American Board of Independent Medical Examiners (ABIME) Causation, What does the science say? A Workshop. Chicago, Illinois, taught by Dr. Kathryn Mueller. Successfully passed a course in Chiropractic Forensics; sponsored by the National Board of Forensic Chiropractors and Texas College of Chiropractic.
    [Show full text]
  • (DRAFT 29 July 02) for Think: the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy
    (DRAFT 29 July 02) for Think: the journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy THE SEVEN WARNING SIGNS OF VOODOO SCIENCE Robert L. Park Department of Physics University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20783 USA A best-selling health guru insists that his brand of spiritual healing is firmly grounded in quantum theory; half the population believes Earth is being visited by space aliens who have mastered faster-than-light travel; and educated people are wearing magnets in their shoes to restore their natural energy. Why, in an age of science, does irrationalism appear to be raging out of control? The persistent irony is that science begets pseudoscience. The more science succeeds, the more it attracts imitators who cloak foolish and often fraudulent claims in the language and symbols of science. With spectacular advances in science and medicine being announced almost daily, the public has come to expect scientific "miracles." And of course, there are "miracles" aplenty, or at least scientific wonders that would have seemed like miracles a few short decades ago. Too often, however, those with little exposure to the methods and ideas of modern science are unable to distinguish genuine scientific advances from the claims of misguided zealots or unscrupulous hucksters. This is a particular problem in the courts, which are increasingly confronted with controversies that turn on questions of science. In judging the credibility of testimony, the scientific credentials of "expert" witnesses are of only limited help. A Ph.D. in science is not an inoculation against foolishness or mendacity, and even some Nobel laureates seem to be a bit strange.
    [Show full text]
  • Why It Mattered to Dover That Intelligent Design Isn't Science Richard B
    FIRST AMENDMENT LAW REVIEW Volume 5 | Issue 1 Article 6 9-1-2006 Why It Mattered to Dover That Intelligent Design Isn't Science Richard B. Katskee Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/falr Part of the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Richard B. Katskee, Why It Mattered to Dover That Intelligent Design Isn't Science, 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/falr/vol5/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in First Amendment Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHY IT MATTERED TO DOVER THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN ISN'T- SCIENCE RIcHARD B. KATSKEE * INTRODUCTION What if you were a consumer concerned about the wholesomeness of a product you were contemplating buying, and, in the highest profile consumer-fraud case in two decades, a court hearing claims against the product's manufacturer issued a decision without looking at the item being sold or the marketing strategy being used? Would you conclude that the court was adequately enforcing the law to protect the public interest? Or what if you were that manufacturer, and the court held you liable for fraud without even considering your proffered defenses? Would you feel that the court had treated you justly? In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,' the Dover school board and the intelligent-design movement as a whole stood trial on the claim that they were trying to pass off a religious view as though it were a scientific theory, so that they could market it to students in public- school science classrooms.
    [Show full text]
  • High School Core Science
    HIGH SCHOOL CORE SCIENCE Parent Guide Date of Last Curriculum Revision: August 2012 District Mission The South Brunswick School District will prepare students to be lifelong learners, critical thinkers, effective communicators and wise decision makers. This will be accomplished through the use of the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards (NJCCCS) and/or the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) at all grade levels. The schools will maintain an environment that promotes intellectual challenge, creativity, social and emotional growth and the healthy physical development of each student. ~Adopted 8.22.11 Curriculum Aligned to NJ Core Curriculum Content Standards (NJCCCS) Board Approval of Science Curriculum August 2016 This curriculum is approved for all regular education programs as specified and for adoption or adaptation by all programs including those for Special Education, English Language Learners, At-Risk Students and Gifted and Talented Students in accordance with Board of Education Policy. 1 Science Acknowledgments We are appreciative of the leadership provided by our curriculum specialists and the knowledge, skills, work and effort of the teachers who served on our curriculum writing teams. In many cases, our units are “home-grown.” While aligning with state and/or national standards, they are designed with the needs of the South Brunswick student population in mind. Articulation The Supervisors, Specialists, Curriculum Chairpersons, Technology Staff Developers, Directors and the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and
    [Show full text]
  • Gatekeeping Soothsayers, Quacks and Magicians: Defining Science in the Courtroom—Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts Eileen Gay Jones
    William Mitchell Law Review Volume 25 | Issue 1 Article 22 1999 Gatekeeping Soothsayers, Quacks and Magicians: Defining Science in the Courtroom—Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts Eileen Gay Jones Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Jones, Eileen Gay (1999) "Gatekeeping Soothsayers, Quacks and Magicians: Defining Science in the Courtroom—Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 25: Iss. 1, Article 22. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol25/iss1/22 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Jones: Gatekeeping Soothsayers, Quacks and Magicians: Defining Science i GATEKEEPING SOOTHSAYERS, QUACKS AND MAGICIANS: DEFINING SCIENCE IN THE COURTROOM -JUDGING SCIENCE: SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND THE FEDERAL COURTSt Eileen GayJonestt "Scientificconclusions are subject to revision. Law, on the other hand, must resolve disputesfinally and quickly. "' I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 315 II. REVIEWING JUDGING SCIENCE .................................................. 319 A. Foster and Huber on Daubert .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Polemic Against Junk Science: Navigating the Oceans That Divide Science and Law with Justice Breyer at the Helm
    Florida International University College of Law eCollections Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2001 Beyond the Polemic Against Junk Science: Navigating the Oceans that Divide Science and Law with Justice Breyer at the Helm Joelle A. Moreno New England School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Judges Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Joelle A. Moreno, Beyond the Polemic Against Junk Science: Navigating the Oceans that Divide Science and Law with Justice Breyer at the Helm , 81 B.U. L. Rev. 1033 (2001). Available at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications/22 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 81 B.U. L. Rev. 1033 2001 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Oct 1 14:31:19 2014 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0006-8047 BEYOND THE POLEMIC AGAINST JUNK SCIENCE: NAVIGATING THE OCEANS THAT DIVIDE SCIENCE AND LAW WITH JUSTICE BREYER AT THE HELM JOELLE ANNE MORENO* IN TROD UCTIO N .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]