3 ms·
It also cited a precedent I didn't know existed for the courts: > The court cites precedent to note that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the met
by komali2 2y ago
It also cited a precedent I didn't know existed for the courts:
> The court cites precedent to note that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation”
I wonder if this a specific case or just a general precedent? Is general precedent a thing?
- exegete 2y agoI saw that quote in the article but cannot find it in the ruling itself: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259933/gov.uscourts.mad.259933.74.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259... It seems to be a quote from a London court ruling in 2010: https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1895 https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1895
- vitus 2y agoIt's mentioned around page 30-31: > Instead, this is a case where the trial of ideas plays out in the pages of peer > reviewed journals, and the scientific public sits as the jury.” (cleaned up)); Underwager v. Salter, > 22 F.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 1994) (affirming summary judgment against defamation claims and > stating that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by > the methods of litigation”). So, https://casetext.com/case/underwager-v-salter https://casetext.com/case/underwager-v-salter
- exegete 2y agoThanks! I don’t know why my search didn’t find that.