Daubert vs. Frye: Logical Empiricism and Reliable Science
Free download. Unpublished. 78 pages. Four recommendations. Over 70 reads. This is a law school student paper I wrote for Heidi Li Feldman’s advanced torts course at the University of Michigan School of Law in 1996. I edited it for my Web site in 2004. The paper is about two U. S. Supreme Court decisions, _Daubert_ and _Frye_. I argue that the logical empiricists have a better understanding of the nature of scientific reliability than the so-called "revised empiricists," and that Frye was a better decision than Daubert. The paper is mainly a critique of Feldman, but I also discuss the views of Richard D. Friedman (who taught my advanced evidence course) and Brian Leiter. Others discussed include Alfred Jules Ayer, Mario Bunge, Pierre Duhem, Kenneth R. Foster, David E. Bernstein, Oswald Hanfling, Carl G. Hempel, Peter W. Huber, Otto Neurath, Karl Popper, W. V. O. Quine, Moritz Schlick, Julius R. Weinberg, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.