Citation

Edmond G. Mod. Law Rev. 2000; 63(2): 216-251.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2000, Modern Law Review Limited, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/1468-2230.00260

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

A critical examination of the way that courts handle scientific expert evidence reveals inconsistency in strategies for validating and legitimating the weight attached to it. This inconsistency is rooted in perceptions of the nature of scientific knowledge. The essay considers the implications of this analysis for the Woolf reforms of civil procedure with respect to expert evidence.