Thesis advisor: Peter Ireland / In Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, the Supreme Court ruled that judges are the gatekeepers of scientific evidence, thereby bringing the debate about economic methodology to the bench. Debate about the admissibility of scientific evidence, contentious even in the natural sciences, is amplified if the discipline incorporates numerous methodological approaches. In this paper, I will consider three different approaches to economic questions—theory, experiment, and econometrics—and examine how a judge can evaluate these approaches as evidence in the courtroom. The expansion of economic reasoning in law means that this question needs to be answered in a number of areas of law, but to give a thorough examination of the different methodological approaches, this paper will limit discussion to economic evidence in tying law. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2010. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Economics Honors Program. / Discipline: Economics.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BOSTON/oai:dlib.bc.edu:bc-ir_102181 |
| Date | January 2010 |
| Creators | Stork, Michael C.A. |
| Publisher | Boston College |
| Source Sets | Boston College |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, thesis |
| Format | electronic, application/pdf |
| Rights | Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. |
Page generated in 0.0031 seconds