English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Growing attention to the philosophy of forensic science in recent decades has sometimes included the question: “what kind of science is forensic science”? Yet there has been little discussion of how that question has been differently construed in terms of period, place, and prevailing anxieties. Following an examination of the unique character this question must have in an American legal context, this article reviews three modes/phases of response, rooted successively in individual authority, comprehensive method, and institutions of flexible problem-solving. The conclusion applies this complex legacy in two ways: first to clarify areas of incoherence and tension in recent attempts to underwrite forensic sciences, and second to supply a fuller framework for Max Houck’s argument for the essentially historical character of forensic science.

What’s Scientific About Forensic Science? Three Versions of American Forensics, 1903-1965, and One Modest Proposal