Susan Haack is Distinguished Professor in the Humanities, Cooper Senior Scholar in Arts and Sciences, Professor of Philosophy, and Professor of Law at the University of Miami. She is the author of numerous highly acclaimed books, among them Evidence and Inquiry and Defending Science, Within Reason, and of many articles in legal, philosophical, and scientific journals. Haack is one of a tiny number of living philosophers included in Peter J. King, 100 Philosophers: The Life and Work of the World's Greatest Thinkers (2004); and she appeared on The Independent on Sunday's list of the ten most important women philosophers of all time (2005).

'There is tremendous confusion in both law and science (including especially epidemiology) about the proper role of scientific evidence and interpretation of standards of proof in the law. No one has come close to the insight and understanding that should be crystal clear to anyone who reads this perfectly organized collection of essays. Haack alone delves into the historical development of the current confusion and brings her deep understanding of law and philosophy to mark the way out of the confusion. I hope that a copy will be sent to every justice on the US Supreme Court.' Richard W. Wright, Distinguished Professor of Law, IIT Chicago-Kent, College of Law

• 1. Epistemology and the law of evidence: problems and projects; 2. Epistemology legalized: or, truth, justice, and the American way; 3. Legal probabilism: an epistemological dissent; 4. Irreconcilable differences? The troubled marriage of science and law; 5. Trial and error: two confusions in Daubert; 6. Federal philosophy of science: a deconstruction - and a reconstruction; 7. Peer review and publication: lessons for lawyers; 8. What's wrong with litigation-driven science?; 9. Proving causation: the weight of combined evidence; 10. Correlation and causation: the 'Bradford Hill Criteria' in epidemiological, legal, and epistemological perspective; 11. Risky business: statistical proof of specific causation; 12. Nothing fancy: some simple truths about truth in the law.

Susan Haack is Distinguished Professor in the Humanities, Cooper Senior Scholar in Arts and Sciences, Professor of Philosophy, and Professor of Law at the University of Miami. She is the author of numerous highly acclaimed books, among them Evidence and Inquiry and Defending Science, Within Reason, and of many articles in legal, philosophical, and scientific journals. Haack is one of a tiny number of living philosophers included in Peter J. King, 100 Philosophers: The Life and Work of the World's Greatest Thinkers (2004); and she appeared on The Independent on Sunday's list of the ten most important women philosophers of all time (2005).

'There is tremendous confusion in both law and science (including especially epidemiology) about the proper role of scientific evidence and interpretation of standards of proof in the law. No one has come close to the insight and understanding that should be crystal clear to anyone who reads this perfectly organized collection of essays. Haack alone delves into the historical development of the current confusion and brings her deep understanding of law and philosophy to mark the way out of the confusion. I hope that a copy will be sent to every justice on the US Supreme Court.' Richard W. Wright, Distinguished Professor of Law, IIT Chicago-Kent, College of Law

• 1. Epistemology and the law of evidence: problems and projects; 2. Epistemology legalized: or, truth, justice, and the American way; 3. Legal probabilism: an epistemological dissent; 4. Irreconcilable differences? The troubled marriage of science and law; 5. Trial and error: two confusions in Daubert; 6. Federal philosophy of science: a deconstruction - and a reconstruction; 7. Peer review and publication: lessons for lawyers; 8. What's wrong with litigation-driven science?; 9. Proving causation: the weight of combined evidence; 10. Correlation and causation: the 'Bradford Hill Criteria' in epidemiological, legal, and epistemological perspective; 11. Risky business: statistical proof of specific causation; 12. Nothing fancy: some simple truths about truth in the law.

Susan Haack is Distinguished Professor in the Humanities, Cooper Senior Scholar in Arts and Sciences, Professor of Philosophy, and Professor of Law at the University of Miami. She is the author of numerous highly acclaimed books, among them Evidence and Inquiry and Defending Science, Within Reason, and of many articles in legal, philosophical, and scientific journals. Haack is one of a tiny number of living philosophers included in Peter J. King, 100 Philosophers: The Life and Work of the World's Greatest Thinkers (2004); and she appeared on The Independent on Sunday's list of the ten most important women philosophers of all time (2005).

'There is tremendous confusion in both law and science (including especially epidemiology) about the proper role of scientific evidence and interpretation of standards of proof in the law. No one has come close to the insight and understanding that should be crystal clear to anyone who reads this perfectly organized collection of essays. Haack alone delves into the historical development of the current confusion and brings her deep understanding of law and philosophy to mark the way out of the confusion. I hope that a copy will be sent to every justice on the US Supreme Court.' Richard W. Wright, Distinguished Professor of Law, IIT Chicago-Kent, College of Law

• 1. Epistemology and the law of evidence: problems and projects; 2. Epistemology legalized: or, truth, justice, and the American way; 3. Legal probabilism: an epistemological dissent; 4. Irreconcilable differences? The troubled marriage of science and law; 5. Trial and error: two confusions in Daubert; 6. Federal philosophy of science: a deconstruction - and a reconstruction; 7. Peer review and publication: lessons for lawyers; 8. What's wrong with litigation-driven science?; 9. Proving causation: the weight of combined evidence; 10. Correlation and causation: the 'Bradford Hill Criteria' in epidemiological, legal, and epistemological perspective; 11. Risky business: statistical proof of specific causation; 12. Nothing fancy: some simple truths about truth in the law.