Psychological science’s replicability crisis and what it means for science in the courtroom

Abstract

In response to what has been termed the “replicability crisis,” great changes are currently under way in how science is conducted and disseminated. A question therefore arises over how such change impacts law’s treatment of scientific evidence. The present standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence in federal courts in the U.S. asks judges to play the role of gatekeeper, determining if the proffered evidence conforms with several indicia of scientific validity. The replicability crisis, however, has demonstrated that these indicia frequently fail to adequately capture, or have lagged behind, science’s best practices. Therefore, this article suggests that as much as the replicability crisis highlights serious issues in the scientific process, it should have similar implications and actionable consequences for legal practitioners and academics. The Article concludes with some suggestions to help ensure that legal decisions are influenced by the best science has to offer.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.