Abstract
In the fields of the philosophy of law and the philosophy of science, discussions of how epidemiological evidence related to causality is to be viewed by making use of counterfactual inferences have been underway since the mid-20th century. The strongest position regarding this, the potential outcome approach, argues that, with the exception of randomized controlled trials, causal relations must not be acknowledged when evaluating causality. On the other hand, the restricted potential outcome approach, adopting a more pragmatic stance, claims that when exposure to a particular factor decreases and the prevalence rate of a particular disease also decreases, that factor can be defined as one cause of the disease in question. However, both positions are limited in terms of how appropriately they can define interventions or clarify counterfactual hypotheses. Consequently, it is necessary to proceed to pragmatic pluralism for inferences to the best explanation. Here, models such as triangulation, negative controls, and the interlocking of evidence help to reach more comprehensive judgments on causal relations through epidemiological evidence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The Decision of the District Court of Tokyo 458 (1981. 9. 28.), p. 118.
- 2.
The Decision of the Supreme Court of Korea 81Da558 (1984. 6. 12.)
- 3.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995); General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
References
Black, B., & Lilienfeld, D. E. (1984). Epidemiologic proof in toxic tort litigation. Fordham Law Review, 52(5), 732–785.
Dore, M. (1983). A Commentary on the use of epidemiological evidence in demonstrating cause-in-fact. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 7, 429–448.
Dore, M. (1985). A proposed standard for evaluating the use of epidemiological evidence in toxic tort and other personal injury cases. Howard Law Journal, 28(3), 684–686.
Dreyer, N. A. (1994). An epidemiologic view of causation: how it differs from the legal. Defense Counsel Journal, 61(40), 43–44.
Egilman, D., Kim, J., & Biklen, M. (2003). Proving causation: the use and abuse of medical and scientific evidence inside the courtroom—an epidemiologist’s critique of the judicial interpretation of the Daubert ruling. Food and Drug Law Journal, 58(2), 223–250.
Federal Judicial Center. (2011). The reference manual on scientific evidence (3rd ed.). DC: The National Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13163.
Green, M. D. (1992). Expert witnesses and sufficiency of evidence in toxic substances litigation: the legacy of agent orange and bendectin litigation. Northwestern University Law Review, 86(3), 643–699.
Greenland, S., Robins, J. M., & Pearl, J. (1999). Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Statistical Science, 14, 29–46.
Hall, K. L., & Silbergeld, E. K. (1983). Reappraising epidemiology: A response to Mr. Dore. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 7(2), 441–448.
Jaffee, L. R. (1985). Of probativity and probability: statistics, scientific evidence, and the calculus of chance. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 46, 924–1082.
Jurs, A. W. (2009). Judicial analysis of complex & cutting-edge science in the Daubert era: epidemiologic risk assessment as a test case for reform strategies. Connecticut Law Review, 42(1), 49–100.
Shafer, G. (1986). The construction of probability arguments. Boston University Law Review, 66(3–4), 799–816.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jung, M. (2018). Epidemiological Causation and Legal Causation. In: An Investigation of the Causal Inference between Epidemiology and Jurisprudence. SpringerBriefs in Philosophy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7862-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7862-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-7861-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-7862-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)