Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Empirical analysis; empirical legal studies; scientific evidence; reliability; legal scholarship; litigation; data fishing; false positives; type-I error; type-II error; statistics; statistical analysis; quantitative research; statistical significance; expert evidence; data manipulation; credibility; causal inference; Daubert; Rule 702; accuracy; selective reporting; research practices; hypothesis testing; data mining; p-hacking; p-value; HARking; data dredging; data analysis; hired gun; battle of the experts; big data; incorrect verdicts; data exploration; cross-validation; pilot studies; regression; subgrouping; trial evidence; juries; jurors; judges; courts; professors; experimental study; study design; randomized controlled trial; RCT; statistical research; observational study; Federal Rules of Evidence; false convictions; decision-making; verdict error; evidence law; civil procedure; expert testimony
Articles 1 - 1 of 1
Full-Text Articles in Legal Writing and Research
Credibility In Empirical Legal Analysis, Hillel J. Bavli
Credibility In Empirical Legal Analysis, Hillel J. Bavli
Brooklyn Law Review
Empirical analysis is central in both legal scholarship and litigation, but it is not credible. Researchers can manipulate data to arrive at any conclusion they wish to obtain. A practice known as data fishing—searching for and selectively reporting methods and results that are favorable to the researcher—entirely invalidates a study’s results by giving rise to false positives and false impressions. Nevertheless, it is prevalent in law, leading to false claims, incorrect verdicts, and destructive policy. In this article, I examine the harm that data fishing in empirical legal research causes. I then build on methods in the sciences to develop …