Legal Questions and Scientific Answers : Ontological Differences and Epistemic Gaps in the Assessment of Causal Relations

Forskningsoutput: AvhandlingDoktorsavhandling (monografi)

Standard

Legal Questions and Scientific Answers : Ontological Differences and Epistemic Gaps in the Assessment of Causal Relations. / Wahlberg, Lena.

Lund University, 2010. 230 s.

Forskningsoutput: AvhandlingDoktorsavhandling (monografi)

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

RIS

TY - THES

T1 - Legal Questions and Scientific Answers : Ontological Differences and Epistemic Gaps in the Assessment of Causal Relations

AU - Wahlberg, Lena

N1 - Defence details Date: 2010-12-03 Time: 13:15 Place: Pufendorfsalen, Juridiska institutionen, Lilla Gråbrödersgatan 3 C, Lund External reviewer(s) Name: Karhu, Juha Title: Professor Affiliation: University of Lapland ---

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - A large number of legal rules create an obligation to prevent, repair or otherwise mitigate damage to human health or the environment. Many of these rules require that a legally relevant causal relation between human behaviour and the damage at issue is established, and in the establishment of causal relations of this kind scientific information is often pressed into service. This thesis examines this specifically legal use of scientific information. It shows that many legally relevant causal relations cannot be established in this way. It also shows that the legal strategy for dealing with epistemic difficulties (uncertainty and ignorance) by relaxing the standard of proof is of limited value in tackling this problem. Consequently, the legal rules focused upon are less efficient tools for combating damage to human health and the environment than their appearances suggest. Other legal means to achieve this aim should therefore be considered. The thesis begins by presenting a framework which can be used to solve some important problems with communication and the division of labour that arise when scientific information is used to answer legal questions. This framework recognizes both epistemological and ontological differences between law and science. The latter are differences between the kinds of entity which are relevant in distinct theoretical contexts; the former, by contrast, are differences between applicable standards of proof. In subsequent parts of the thesis this framework shapes the discussion of the question: To what extent can legally relevant causal relations, involving legally significant entities, be established through the application of scientific information about other, scientifically relevant entities and legal standards of proof. The thesis concludes with a discussion of some of the ways in which the legal regulation could, potentially, be adapted, so as to counteract damage to human health and the environment more efficiently.

AB - A large number of legal rules create an obligation to prevent, repair or otherwise mitigate damage to human health or the environment. Many of these rules require that a legally relevant causal relation between human behaviour and the damage at issue is established, and in the establishment of causal relations of this kind scientific information is often pressed into service. This thesis examines this specifically legal use of scientific information. It shows that many legally relevant causal relations cannot be established in this way. It also shows that the legal strategy for dealing with epistemic difficulties (uncertainty and ignorance) by relaxing the standard of proof is of limited value in tackling this problem. Consequently, the legal rules focused upon are less efficient tools for combating damage to human health and the environment than their appearances suggest. Other legal means to achieve this aim should therefore be considered. The thesis begins by presenting a framework which can be used to solve some important problems with communication and the division of labour that arise when scientific information is used to answer legal questions. This framework recognizes both epistemological and ontological differences between law and science. The latter are differences between the kinds of entity which are relevant in distinct theoretical contexts; the former, by contrast, are differences between applicable standards of proof. In subsequent parts of the thesis this framework shapes the discussion of the question: To what extent can legally relevant causal relations, involving legally significant entities, be established through the application of scientific information about other, scientifically relevant entities and legal standards of proof. The thesis concludes with a discussion of some of the ways in which the legal regulation could, potentially, be adapted, so as to counteract damage to human health and the environment more efficiently.

KW - interdisciplinarity

KW - law and science

KW - ontology

KW - scientific knowledge

KW - standard of proof

KW - sustainable development

KW - uncertainty

KW - tort law

KW - jurisprudence

KW - allmän rättslära

KW - ignorance

KW - expert knowledge

KW - evidence

KW - environmental law

KW - environmental damage

KW - causation

M3 - Doctoral Thesis (monograph)

SN - 978-91-7473-057-9

PB - Lund University

ER -