The Epistemic Value of Expert Autonomy

According to an influential Enlightenment ideal, one shouldn't rely epistemically on other people's say-so, at least not if one is in a position to evaluate the relevant evidence for oneself. However, in much recent work in social epistemology, we are urged to dispense with this ideal, which is seen as stemming from a misguided focus on isolated individuals to the exclusion of groups and communities. In this paper, I argue that that an emphasis on the social nature of inquiry should not lead us to entirely abandon the Enlightenment ideal of epistemically autonomous agents. Specifically, I suggest that it is an appropriate ideal for those who serve as experts in a given epistemic community, and develop a notion of expert acceptance to make sense of this. I go on to show that, all other things being equal, this kind of epistemic autonomy among experts makes their joint testimony more reliable, which in turn brings epistemic benefits both to laypeople and to experts in other fields

Legal paternalism and the identity of Polish legal culture

The project was financed by National Science Centre Poland (decision no. DEC-2012/05/B/HS5/01111)

Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: In the Interest of Full Disclosure

This Note examines the varying interpretations of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an issue currently dividing the nation\u27s circuit courts of appeal and district courts. Interpreting the Rule for its plain meaning yields an exemption for expert witnesses who are either treating physicians or employees of a party in the case. While some courts have followed this textualist approach, more have opted for a broader interpretation, imposing the expert report requirements of Rule 26 on employee experts and treating physicians under certain circumstances. In keeping with the spirit of the Rules, courts should interpret the Rule broadly so as to encourage full disclosure while the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure considers potential amendments

Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: In the Interest of Full Disclosure

This Note examines the varying interpretations of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an issue currently dividing the nation\u27s circuit courts of appeal and district courts. Interpreting the Rule for its plain meaning yields an exemption for expert witnesses who are either treating physicians or employees of a party in the case. While some courts have followed this textualist approach, more have opted for a broader interpretation, imposing the expert report requirements of Rule 26 on employee experts and treating physicians under certain circumstances. In keeping with the spirit of the Rules, courts should interpret the Rule broadly so as to encourage full disclosure while the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure considers potential amendments

Remain or Leave? Reflections on the pedagogical and informational value of a MOOC on the 2016 UK referendum on EU membership

While the British electorate was asked to vote on a simple-sounding question during the UK referendum on EU membership in June 2016, the issues at play were extremely complex. In order to help potential voters make sense of the debate, the authors ran a free Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on the referendum in the weeks leading up to the vote. The core of the MOOC featured all the common characteristics of this type of course: weekly video lectures, quizzes, question and answer sessions, forums and personal journals which participants could use to share and deliberate. This article reflects on the design and delivery of this course to assess its usefulness in an academic setting, especially when treating politically sensitive questions. In particular, we consider issues of format, participation, and interaction and also examine student outcomes as measured by a survey of users who completed the course. What this shows is that the ability of MOOCs to deliver on their initial promise as a revolutionary pedagogical tool for communicating knowledge remains somewhat limited. Nevertheless, the level of student satisfaction obtained and the desire expressed in discussion forums for more expert analysis outside conventional channels suggests there is probably a high demand for EU-related MOOCs

The Admissibility of Differential Diagnosis Testimony to Prove Causation in Toxic Tort Cases: The Interplay of Adjective and Substantive Law

This article uses the differential diagnosis opinions to explore a pair of interrelationships. The basic causal framework employed by most courts in toxic tort cases is presented. A key to understanding the developing case law in this area is to appreciate the degree to which the courts have adopted the interpretive conventions of science in assessing admissibility

Researcher-led teaching:embodiment of academic practice

This paper explores the embodied practices of leading researchers(and/or leading scholars/practitioners), suggesting that distinctive‘researcher-led teaching’ depends on educators who are willing and able to be their research in the teaching setting. We advocate an approach to the development of higher education pedagogy which makes lead-researchers the objects of inquiry and we summarise case study analyses (in neuroscience and humanities) where the knowledge-making‘signatures’ of academic leaders are used to exhibit the otherwise hidden identities of research. We distinguish between learning readymade knowledge and the process of knowledge in the making and point towards the importance of inquiry in the flesh. We develop a view of higher education teaching that depends upon academic status a priori, but we argue that this stance is inclusive because it has the propensity to locate students as participants in academic culture