![]() Sir Karl Popper believed that crucial experiments could play a role in falsifying scientific theories (“It should be noted that I mean by a crucial experiment one that is designed to refute a theory (if possible) and more especially one which is designed to bring about a decision between two competing theories by refuting (at least) one of them-without of course, proving the other.”) 2 In contrast, Pierre Duhem and Thomas Kuhn were leading voices against the view that scientists are influenced by “crucial experiments” in deciding between competing paradigms. 1 Such experiments have gained iconic status in the history of science.īut there is a significant and lively debate among philosophers and historians on whether it is meaningful to talk about “crucial experiments” in science. From their measurements they concluded that light bends in a gravitational field, which provided evidence in support of Einstein’s over Newton’s theory of light. Also widely acclaimed as a crucial experiment in the early part of the 20th century were the measurements made by British physicists, among them Sir Arthur Eddington, of the sun’s rays during a solar eclipse. For example, history of science texts tell us that it was a crucial experiment that put to rest the theory of spontaneous generation in favor of the germ theory of disease and that launched a critical blow to the Phlogiston theory of combustion. ![]() Trial Little surprises and drama at trial – both sides know what every witness or docoument will say, and if a witness’s testimony varies from that given in deposition, he will be promptly impeached w/ prior sworn testimony.In the narratives describing the historical development of natural science, nothing captures the drama of discovery as effectively as the “crucial experiment” (an experimentum crucisfinally resolves competing explanations and/or theories, bringing to a close contested schools of thought. P offered no rebuttal no indication from representation K that D breached a duty by failing to obtain an endorsement deal. o Holding : Here, P did not offer evidence to rebut witnesses who testified to P’s drug use every insurance company inquires about drug use. When the moving party has met this burden, the burden shifts to the other party to show that there is a genuine issue – they must come forward with specific facts showing so. Moving party bears initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record that it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. o Rule : SJ is appropriate if the moving party shows that the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to JMOL. ![]() Also that D negotiated for endorsement K on P’s behalf and other players, failed to obtain the deal. P’s estate sued, claiming D failed to obtain $1m life insurance policy requested, and, in reliance, forewent purchasing one. Advantage International o P died of drug OD 2 days after being drafted. o Holding: Here, factual conclusions drawn by the courts are contradicted by the evidence presented. Evidence may not be weighed at this stage genuine factual disputes are to be decided by juries generally. For SJ purposes: evidence of non-movant is to believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |