Archive for the ‘“Junk science”’ Category

Frye vs. Daubert: Should it matter to the forensic psychologist?

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

From a practical standpoint it shouldn’t matter to a competent forensic psychologist whether the judge applies the Frye standard or the Daubert standard when deciding whether to allow the expert’s testimony. Regardless of the standard applied by the judge, forensic psychologists who adhere to the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology should offer testimony that is scientifically reliable. The Guidelines state: (more…)

When psychological experts rely on “junk science”

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

It’s well understood that judges can exclude expert testimony based on speculation or on “junk science,” that is, on unreliable or invalid scientific findings. At best, expert testimony of this kind is unhelpful. At worst, it can be so misleading as to have deadly consequences.