{"id":1454,"date":"2016-08-15T07:00:48","date_gmt":"2016-08-15T11:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/?p=1454"},"modified":"2017-01-12T16:56:10","modified_gmt":"2017-01-12T21:56:10","slug":"unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/","title":{"rendered":"Unreasonable Certainty: A Call To Abandon \u201cReasonable Degree of Scientific Testimony\u201d Terminology"},"content":{"rendered":"

The prevailing practice in many jurisdictions, usually compelled by custom rather than law, is to ask a testifying expert whether the opinion proffered or the conclusion drawn is held \u201cto a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.\u201d Yet scientists do not proclaim certainty in their domains; instead they acknowledge and embrace scientific knowledge as an area of change and evolution. And any attempt to define the term fails \u2013 how<\/em> certain is \u201creasonable\u201d certainty, and how is that measured except as a subjective appraisal rather than a uniform measure within a discipline?<\/p>\n

The origins of the term also confirm its inutility and inappropriateness in most if not all circumstances. The history of this legal term \u2013 and its beginnings with medical<\/em> experts – was traced in Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About “Reasonable Medical Certainty,”<\/em>, 57 Md. L. Rev. 380 (1988).<\/p>\n

The emergence of this terminology came from early precedent in regard to expert testimony predicting future consequences<\/em> such as the need for medical care in years to come or the likely harm a plaintiff would suffer later in life. \u201c[T]he alleged permanent disability, in order to be a ground for damages, must be one that is reasonably certain to result from the injury complained of.\u201d Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Conway, 48 N.E. 483, 484 (Ill. 1897). The purpose of the language was to avoid speculation or conjecture when deciding monetary damages. Lewin, at 410. Without judicial or scientific\/medical analysis, the phrase then began to be used in testimony that was retrospective to address causation. Lewin, 421-424.<\/p>\n

The persistence of this term breeds the likelihood of confusion in at least two regards \u2013 an over-inflation of the probativeness and reliability of the testimony and the potential conflation of that standard with the burden of proof, particularly in criminal cases. With these problems and others in mind, and because the term is not<\/em> required in most jurisdictions, the National Commission of Forensic Science approved a \u201cviews document\u201d at its March, 2016 meeting calling for the term to no longer be used. [This writer is a member of the Commission and was one of the principal authors of the document.]<\/p>\n

The rest of this column is that document [excerpted]:<\/p>\n

It is the view of the National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) that legal professionals\u00a0should not require that forensic discipline testimony be admitted conditioned upon the expert\u00a0witness testifying that a conclusion is held to a \u201creasonable scientific certainty,\u201d a \u201creasonable\u00a0degree of scientific certainty,\u201d or a \u201creasonable degree of [discipline] certainty.\u201d\u2026<\/p>\n

Forensics experts are often required to testify that the opinions or facts stated are offered \u201cto a\u00a0reasonable scientific certainty\u201d or to a \u201creasonable degree of [discipline] certainty.\u201d Such\u00a0statements have no scientific meaning and may mislead factfinders when deciding whether guilt\u00a0has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. \u201cOutside of the courts, this phrasing is not routinely\u00a0used in scientific disciplines. Thus, in prescribing a different standard for admissibility in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals., 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993), the Supreme Court\u00a0acknowledged that “it would be unreasonable to conclude that the subject of scientific testimony\u00a0must be ‘known’ to a certainty; arguably, there are no certainties in science.\u201d In the courtroom\u00a0setting, the phrase\u2019s reference to \u201ccertainty\u201d risks misleading or confusing the factfinder.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the phrase in its varying forms, is not formally defined in standard medical or\u00a0scientific reference materials. In the courts, this phrase is almost always a matter of custom, but\u00a0in some jurisdictions, it results from an appellate court ruling or trial judges\u2019 or lawyers\u2019 belief\u00a0that it is a necessary precondition for admissibility.<\/p>\n

I \u2013 The Historic Background to Use of the \u201cReasonable Degree of Certainty\u201d Terminology<\/h2>\n

As best as can be ascertained, the \u201creasonable degree of certainty\u201d formulation was first applied\u00a0to scientific evidence in 1935, when a witness was \u201casked whether he could determine with\u00a0reasonable scientific certainty the cause of the capsizing of the boat.\u201d Herbst v. Levy, 279 Ill.\u00a0App. 353, 358 (Ill. App. Ct. 1935).<\/p>\n

This was not the mandate of the court but a stylistic\u00a0approach adopted by a lawyer. Not until 1969 was the terminology linked to the admissibility\u00a0determination:<\/p>\n

If the witness, based upon his background skill, possesses extraordinary training to aid\u00a0laymen in determining facts and if he bases his answer upon what he believes to be\u00a0reasonable scientific or engineering certainty, generally the evidence should be admitted,\u00a0subject, of course, to the cross-examination of the adversary.<\/em><\/p>\n

Twin City Plaza, Inc. v. Central Surety & Ins. Corp., 409 F.2d 1195, 1203 (8th Cir. 1969). <\/em><\/p>\n

This\u00a0statement was made without legal or scientific analysis as to what the term meant or why its use\u00a0was being mandated.<\/p>\n

The modern view recognizes that the term is not required as a condition of admitting expert\u00a0evidence. A review of state court case law, undertaken by the Hawaii Supreme Court in 2014,\u00a0confirmed this and concluded, for its state, that \u201ctrial courts should not require a \u2018reasonable\u00a0degree of scientific certainty\u2019 before admitting expert opinions but may exclude expert testimony\u00a0based on speculation or possibility.\u201d State v. DeLeon, 131 Haw. 463, 484 (Haw. 2014). See also\u00a0State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862, 862 N.W.2d 757, 773 (Neb. 2015) (\u201cAn expert does not have to\u00a0couch his or her opinion in the magic words of \u2018reasonable certainty,\u2019\u201d).<\/p>\n

The same is true in federal courts\u2013neither the Daubert trilogy of cases [Daubert v. Merrell Dow\u00a0Pharmaceuticals, Joiner v. General Electric, or Carmichael v. Kumho Tire] nor Federal Rules of\u00a0Evidence 702-705 require such language. As well, both the Daubert and Frye tests, when\u00a0properly implemented, serve to screen out speculative testimony and thus further demonstrate the\u00a0lack of need for the \u201creasonable degree of certainty\u201d language.<\/p>\n

II \u2013 The Problems Arising from this Terminology<\/h2>\n

Multiple problems abound with phrases such as \u201cscientific certainty\u201d or \u201c[discipline] certainty.\u201d<\/p>\n

These include the following:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • There is no common definition across science or within disciplines as to what threshold\u00a0establishes \u201creasonable\u201d certainty. Therefore, whether couched as \u201cscientific certainty\u201d or\u00a0\u201c[discipline] certainty,\u201d the term is idiosyncratic to the witness.<\/li>\n
  • Use of the term \u201cscientific\u201d cloaks the opinion with the rigor, acceptance and\u00a0reproducibility of scientific study.<\/li>\n
  • Coupled with the term \u201creasonable,\u201d a juror might equate it with certainty at the level\u00a0demanded by the \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt\u201d standard of proof.<\/li>\n
  • The term invites confusion when presented with testimony expressed in probabilistic\u00a0terms. How is a lay person, without either scientific or legal training, to understand an\u00a0expert\u2019s \u201creasonable scientific certainty\u201d that evidence is \u201cprobably\u201d linked to a\u00a0particular source?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    III \u2013 Toward a Meaningful Alternative (or Alternatives):<\/h2>\n

    The Commission recognizes that recommending the abandonment of a long-used phrase is a first\u00a0step and an incomplete one.<\/p>\n

    Additional work is needed in both the scientific and legal communities to identify appropriate\u00a0language that may be used by experts to express conclusions and opinions to the trier of fact\u00a0based on observations of evidence and data derived from evidence. Rather than use\u00a0\u201creasonable\u2026certainty\u201d terminology, experts should make a statement about the examination\u00a0itself, including an expression of the uncertainty in the measurement or in the data.<\/p>\n

    The expert\u00a0should state the bases for that opinion (the underlying information, studies, observations) and its\u00a0limitations.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The prevailing practice in many jurisdictions, usually compelled by custom rather than law, is to ask a testifying expert whether the opinion proffered or the conclusion drawn is held \u201cto a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.\u201d Yet scientists do not proclaim certainty in their domains; instead they acknowledge and embrace scientific knowledge as an area of change and evolution. And any attempt to define the term fails \u2013 how certain is \u201creasonable\u201d certainty, and how is that measured except as a subjective appraisal rather than a uniform measure within a discipline? The origins of the term also confirm its inutility and inappropriateness in most if not all circumstances. The history of this legal term \u2013 and its beginnings with medical experts – was traced in Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About “Reasonable Medical Certainty,”, 57 Md. L. Rev. 380 (1988). The emergence of this terminology came from early precedent in regard to expert testimony predicting future consequences such as the need for medical care in years to come or the likely harm …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":955,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[145,57,466],"audience":[55],"coauthors":[40],"class_list":["post-1454","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-faculty-commentary","tag-advocacy","tag-evidence","tag-scientific-certainty","audience-practitioners"],"yoast_head":"\r\nUnreasonable Certainty: A Call To Abandon \u201cReasonable Degree of Scientific Testimony\u201d Terminology - Voices at Temple<\/title>\r\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\r\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Unreasonable Certainty: A Call To Abandon \u201cReasonable Degree of Scientific Testimony\u201d Terminology - Voices at Temple\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The prevailing practice in many jurisdictions, usually compelled by custom rather than law, is to ask a testifying expert whether the opinion proffered or the conclusion drawn is held \u201cto a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.\u201d Yet scientists do not proclaim certainty in their domains; instead they acknowledge and embrace scientific knowledge as an area of change and evolution. And any attempt to define the term fails \u2013 how certain is \u201creasonable\u201d certainty, and how is that measured except as a subjective appraisal rather than a uniform measure within a discipline? The origins of the term also confirm its inutility and inappropriateness in most if not all circumstances. The history of this legal term \u2013 and its beginnings with medical experts – was traced in Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About “Reasonable Medical Certainty,”, 57 Md. L. Rev. 380 (1988). The emergence of this terminology came from early precedent in regard to expert testimony predicting future consequences such as the need for medical care in years to come or the likely harm …\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Voices at Temple\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-08-15T11:00:48+00:00\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-12T21:56:10+00:00\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Microscope.png\" \/>\r\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"840\" \/>\r\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"560\" \/>\r\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jules Epstein\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jules Epstein\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\r\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Beckie Schatschneider\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/505b7875ef49205bf81379b92d47f94e\"},\"headline\":\"Unreasonable Certainty: A Call To Abandon \u201cReasonable Degree of Scientific Testimony\u201d Terminology\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-08-15T11:00:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-12T21:56:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1196,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/Microscope.png\",\"keywords\":[\"Advocacy\",\"Evidence\",\"Scientific Certainty\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Faculty Commentary\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\\\/\",\"name\":\"Unreasonable Certainty: A Call To Abandon \u201cReasonable Degree of Scientific Testimony\u201d Terminology - Voices at Temple\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/Microscope.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-08-15T11:00:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-12T21:56:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/505b7875ef49205bf81379b92d47f94e\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/Microscope.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/Microscope.png\",\"width\":840,\"height\":560,\"caption\":\"Microscope\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Unreasonable Certainty: A Call To Abandon \u201cReasonable Degree of Scientific Testimony\u201d Terminology\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/\",\"name\":\"Voices at Temple\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/505b7875ef49205bf81379b92d47f94e\",\"name\":\"Beckie Schatschneider\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/62b6c5fa1068c42262dab498d74cb3fc60fbba8344047dc13348bd3aacf7b70a?s=96&d=mm&r=g9dc77189f33a293d2c82a50cd24ebb9f\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/62b6c5fa1068c42262dab498d74cb3fc60fbba8344047dc13348bd3aacf7b70a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/62b6c5fa1068c42262dab498d74cb3fc60fbba8344047dc13348bd3aacf7b70a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Beckie Schatschneider\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/author\\\/rschatsc\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\r\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Unreasonable Certainty: A Call To Abandon \u201cReasonable Degree of Scientific Testimony\u201d Terminology - Voices at Temple","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Unreasonable Certainty: A Call To Abandon \u201cReasonable Degree of Scientific Testimony\u201d Terminology - Voices at Temple","og_description":"The prevailing practice in many jurisdictions, usually compelled by custom rather than law, is to ask a testifying expert whether the opinion proffered or the conclusion drawn is held \u201cto a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.\u201d Yet scientists do not proclaim certainty in their domains; instead they acknowledge and embrace scientific knowledge as an area of change and evolution. And any attempt to define the term fails \u2013 how certain is \u201creasonable\u201d certainty, and how is that measured except as a subjective appraisal rather than a uniform measure within a discipline? The origins of the term also confirm its inutility and inappropriateness in most if not all circumstances. The history of this legal term \u2013 and its beginnings with medical experts – was traced in Lewin, The Genesis and Evolution of Legal Uncertainty About “Reasonable Medical Certainty,”, 57 Md. L. Rev. 380 (1988). The emergence of this terminology came from early precedent in regard to expert testimony predicting future consequences such as the need for medical care in years to come or the likely harm …","og_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/","og_site_name":"Voices at Temple","article_published_time":"2016-08-15T11:00:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-12T21:56:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":840,"height":560,"url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Microscope.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Jules Epstein","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jules Epstein","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/"},"author":{"name":"Beckie Schatschneider","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#\/schema\/person\/505b7875ef49205bf81379b92d47f94e"},"headline":"Unreasonable Certainty: A Call To Abandon \u201cReasonable Degree of Scientific Testimony\u201d Terminology","datePublished":"2016-08-15T11:00:48+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-12T21:56:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/"},"wordCount":1196,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Microscope.png","keywords":["Advocacy","Evidence","Scientific Certainty"],"articleSection":["Faculty Commentary"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/","name":"Unreasonable Certainty: A Call To Abandon \u201cReasonable Degree of Scientific Testimony\u201d Terminology - Voices at Temple","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Microscope.png","datePublished":"2016-08-15T11:00:48+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-12T21:56:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#\/schema\/person\/505b7875ef49205bf81379b92d47f94e"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Microscope.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Microscope.png","width":840,"height":560,"caption":"Microscope"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/unreasonable-certainty-call-abandon-reasonable-degree-scientific-testimony-terminology\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Unreasonable Certainty: A Call To Abandon \u201cReasonable Degree of Scientific Testimony\u201d Terminology"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/","name":"Voices at Temple","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#\/schema\/person\/505b7875ef49205bf81379b92d47f94e","name":"Beckie Schatschneider","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/62b6c5fa1068c42262dab498d74cb3fc60fbba8344047dc13348bd3aacf7b70a?s=96&d=mm&r=g9dc77189f33a293d2c82a50cd24ebb9f","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/62b6c5fa1068c42262dab498d74cb3fc60fbba8344047dc13348bd3aacf7b70a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/62b6c5fa1068c42262dab498d74cb3fc60fbba8344047dc13348bd3aacf7b70a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Beckie Schatschneider"},"url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/author\/rschatsc\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Microscope.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1454","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1454"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1454\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1589,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1454\/revisions\/1589"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/955"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1454"},{"taxonomy":"audience","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/audience?post=1454"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}