Objectivity in science and law: A shared rescue strategy

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorBurch, Matthew
dc.contributor.authorFurman, Katherine
dc.contributor.funderWellcome Trusten
dc.contributor.funderIndependent Social Research Foundationen
dc.contributor.funderHorizon 2020 Framework Programmeen
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-23T06:34:41Z
dc.date.available2019-11-23T06:34:41Z
dc.date.issued2019-02-26
dc.description.abstractThe ideal of objectivity is in crisis in science and the law, and yet it continues to do important work in both practices. This article describes that crisis and develops a shared rescue strategy for objectivity in both domains. In a recent article, Inkeri Koskinen (2018) attempts to bring unity to the fragmented discourse on objectivity in the philosophy of science with a risk account of objectivity. To put it simply, she argues that we call practitioners, processes, and products of science objective when they identify and manage certain important epistemic risks. We endorse this view and attempt to tailor Koskinen's strategy to the problem of objectivity in the legal context. To do so, we develop a novel notion of phronetic risk, and argue that we call practitioners, processes, and products of law objective when they identify and manage certain important epistemic and/or phronetic risks. Our attempt to rescue objectivity is especially important for work at the intersection of law and psychiatry. For that intersection represents a place where skeptical worries about objectivity in science and law work in tandem to pose serious critical challenges to contemporary practice; and our rescue strategy represents a promising way to negotiate those challenges.en
dc.description.sponsorship203376/Z/16/Z; 667526K4Uen
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.description.versionPublished Versionen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.citationBurch, M. and Furman, K., 2019. Objectivity in science and law: A shared rescue strategy. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 64, (10pp). DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.02.004en
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.02.004en
dc.identifier.eissn1873-6386
dc.identifier.endpage70en
dc.identifier.issn0160-2527
dc.identifier.journaltitleInternational Journal of Law and Psychiatryen
dc.identifier.startpage60en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10468/9190
dc.identifier.volume64en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherElsevier Ltden
dc.relation.urihttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252718302401
dc.rights© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.subjectObjectivityen
dc.subjectScienceen
dc.subjectLawen
dc.subjectPsychiatryen
dc.subjectEpistemic risken
dc.subjectPhronetic risken
dc.titleObjectivity in science and law: A shared rescue strategyen
dc.typeArticle (peer-reviewed)en
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
1-s2.0-S0160252718302401-main.pdf
Size:
513.05 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Philosophy - Journal Articles