<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: An Engineer's View
Review: A must read for any person involved with the product realization process. The only way to protect you and your company against junk science when you are hauled into court with your product or service is to understand that junk science exists and to be prepared to provide real and concrete data to support the validity of your design, not simply close your eyes to their opinions and say "There is nothing wrong".Several of the companies mentioned in the book were severally damaged by what this books talks about. A number of excellent products have been taken of the market never to come back and more will never see the light of day because of those who have no other desire that to either make money or push their unsubstantiated agendas have been allowed to take advantage of our tort court systems in the USA. Yes, some not so good products also have been taken off the market but for the wrong reasons. This too keeps other excellent products locked away in the closet. In our increasingly technological world lack of understanding in science and technology along of this issues by both sides of the junk science debate will only result in more witch-hunts and more tilting at windmills. To be successful in life one cannot simply allow them selves to be a victim, we must understand the world around us. No matter how good it really is, everything has a cost, everything has a dark side, but even with these costs and risks that do exist we must address the real issues and not simply make someone pay for the downside of life just because they can.
Rating: 
Summary: A scientist's view
Review: As a person who has been a non-corporate scientist for 25 years, I strongly endorse this text. It walks the reader through the many hideously-flawed legal "arguments" that have set the stage for travesties of justice, based on scientific misinformation and distortion through the years. Most of the American public (and the lawyers who toady to it) wants to believe what it believes on the basis of intuition and supposition rather than objective evidence, and Huber shows why this is an altogether-invalid approach. The reviewer who gave this book a one-star rating is a plaintiff's attorney-- I would "make book" on that.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent view of pseudoscience & its impact on the law
Review: As someone formally trained in scientific method and the law, Mr. Huber provides a truly scholarly treatise on "pseudoscience" and its negative impact on American legal proceedings. Even as someone with more than a passing familiarity with this topic, I was truly amazed at the sad state of affairs described in this text. It should be mandatory reading for anyone desiring an education in scientific issues affecting the law.
Rating:
Summary: A true horror story
Review: Huber's book is a frightening look at what happens when critical, life-influencing decisions for our society are made by a group of people (juries) who's most analytical candidates are rejected in order to provide plaintiffs and their counsel with windfalls. The concept that all ideas deserve equal attention and truth or falsehood will always be shown in court is flat-out wrong. This book is the "how." Read "Atlas Shrugged" for the why.
Rating:
Summary: Hitting the Nail on the Head
Review: I found this book to be an excellent read, I am not a lawyer but I am familiar with statistics and causality. This books makes an excellent argument whose conclusion you could guess: some of the most costly court judgments in American history did not have scientifically valid evidence to support them. Trial lawyers litigate scientifically questionable cases in order to take a shot at potentially huge awards and they will argue anything in the hope that that the average jury will buy into it. Given a society in which every wrong and every grievance is assumed to be a result of someone's victimization, large companies are an obvious target. Thus many birth defects, accidents and many other human tragedies can be capitalized on by litigants for great financial advantage by laying the problem at the door of a "deep pocket", even when the causal connection is completely unfounded or absurd. Huber steps through several fascinating cases (including Audi's "uncontrolled acceleration" problem and Benedectin, the morning sickness drug), showing both the junk science employed and the deceptive tactics of the attorneys. Huber effectively makes several important points: that bad science can crowd out good science because of bad precedents and court procedures that don't serve the interests of truth. He recommends reforms that would give greater primacy to scientifically valid evidence and which would more easily exclude patently false scientific claims. It makes enormous sense to anyone who wants to see justice served and in seeing that the public is not denied products and medicines because of the enrichment of clever tort lawyers, not to mention the enormous cost to our society of this type of unfounded legal extortion. I can't figure out the gripe of the guy who gave this book one star -- The New York Times raved about this well written book, and for good reason -- it is deeply disturbing to see how justice can be miscarried. My guess is that many members of the legal profession don't want laymen to think they can understand the complexities of their profession, and thereby be outraged by what a commonsense understanding of some of their behavior would dictate. These issues are too important to be left entirely to the lawyers, and a system that is unlikely to be reformed if left solely to their efforts. Huber has done a magnificent job of making these fascinating issues accessible without being mired in legal jargon and making it clear how every citizen's interests are at risk when junk science prevails. You are likely to read this book in one sitting if you get caught up in it like I did.
Rating:
Summary: Lawyers now and forever!
Review: Peter Huber is the principal critic of the rise of tort and consequent dilution of contract. His views on judicial nannying were well set out in his book "Liability". He now sets his sights on perverted or suspect science which he sees as a convenient tool to effect an extension of tort and product liability. The book is an easy - not to say breezy - read. Despite the severe health warning I give them, my students all love this book. Huber's thesis is a simple one - bad science in the court room has helped to make bad law in the precedent book. He claims that there are too many cowboy scientists acting as hired guns and peddling their crank theories, half truths and cynical reservations to anyone who will buy their views. The telling of the tale is quickfire, lay reader stuff rather than law review scholarship. This earned Huber a painstakingly scholarly refutation by Kenneth Cheesebro in his review article "Galileo's Retort". However, Huber's v! iews draw recent support in commentary by Zakaria Erzinclioglu in the journal Nature (4/30/1998)where a recently retired forensic scientist also claimed there were too many cowboy practitioners whose services can be brought at a price. It's entertaining and thought provoking - but needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Rating: 
Summary: Junk Scholarship and Junk Logic
Review: This book is a notorious piece of total junk: junk logic, junk scholarship, junk law. Huber popularized the inspired neologism "junk science" to denigrate views and outcomes he didn't like. Since publication this book has been praised by those who don't want any interference with corporate behavior, no matter how reprehensible, and vilified by those on the other side. In the middle are a broad range of scholars who have pointed out the sloppy scholarship, nonexistent historiography, and misleading choice of examples. Real junk. Get it from the library. Huber is already rich enough charging huge lecture fees from his corporate clack. An excellent and balanced book on this subject is Sheila Jasanoff's, Science at the Bar.
<< 1 >>
| 
