Tokens: 9
.
This
is
perhaps
a
paradigmatic
situation
that
vividly
illustrates
the
communication
gap
between
the
scientific
community
,
on
the
one
hand
,
and
the
legal
/
judicial
community
.
Epistemologically
,
scientists
as
well
as
medical
doctors
are
not
either
trained
or
conditioned
to
look
for
a
blameworthy
“
cause
”
.
While
every
doctor
or
scientist
will
,
when
establishing
diagnosis
,
try
to
establish
the
cause
of
the
symptoms
,
he
is
not
looking
for
the
legal
consequences
such
as
necessarily
arise
in
the
adversarial
context
of
any
trial
.
This
is
why
the
epistemological
debate
in
the
scientific
community
is
objective
and
reasonable
.
The
moment
that
very
same
debate
is
put
on
the
stage
of
the
adversarial
theatre
the
objectivity
and
reasonableness
become
charged
with
potential
consequences
of
the
outcome
of
the
trial
.
What
was
reasonable
in
the
sense
of
“
relative
”
before
,
suddenly
becomes
a
discrete
“
yes
”
or
“
no
”
proposition
,
for
which
the
expert
appointed
by
the
court
must
take
full
responsibility
.
What
before
was
a
full
spectrum
of
experiment
,
suddenly
becomes
a
“
yes
”
or
“
no
”
proposition
which
commonly
,
moreover
,
may
have
dire
consequences
for
the
protagonists
in
the
trial
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O