|
In a message dated 12/20/2005 3:16:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A liberal education and a willingness to get educated to make such assessments. And an understanding that we always act on imperfect knowledge and understanding and an understanding that in some instances it is at least as important that things get decided as that they get decided correctly. A liberal education seems
woefully inadequate to evaluate evidence regarding what is or is not science.
When I taught philosophy at Northwestern University I was lucky to have
taught some extraordinarily bright students some of whom went on to the best law
schools in the nation. I would be loathe to entrust any of
them with the task of assessing expert evidence regarding the nature
of science before or after they graduated from law school.
This is not a case of
acting on imperfect knowledge. Rather, it challenges the view that
somehow judges have the capacity to assess expert testimony in
science. That this isn't a new issue is irrelevant to the question of
whether it is an important one.
Steve's contention that the
"ability to handle a wide range of subjects might be the very essence of a
liberal arts education" depends on what "to handle" means. After teaching
undergraduates for over nine years, I doubt that a liberal arts education
can carry the weight Steve requires of it.
Too often lawyers believe,
erroneously in my view, that they can educate themselves in a wide area of
subjects. This might be a professional necessity, but let's not
romanticize it as anything more than that.
In my view, judges are (or
should be) trained in applying the endorsement and Lemon tests, not
evaluating expert testimony about what science is.
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
