Abstract
I am grateful to Professors Edmond and Roach' and Professor Haack2 for their thoughtful replies to my paper, Law 's Treatment of Science: From Idealizationto Understanding.Much like my experience after reading "A Contextual Approach to the Admissibility of the State's Forensic Science and Medical Evidence,"' and Haack's contributions, 4 I have come away from reviewing Edmond and Roach and Haack's replies with a heightened awareness that the admissibility of scientific evidence is significant and complicated. Both replies have raised important concerns that have demanded further attention from me, which I turn to here. My response to Edmond and Roach's Reply is in Part I below, followed by my response to Haack's Reply in Part II.
| Original language | Canadian English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Dalhousie Law Journal |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - Apr. 1 2013 |
Keywords
- scientific evidence
- litigation
- science
- law
- admissibility
- Goudge Inquiry Report
Disciplines
- Science and Technology Law