Hamlin Christopher
Acad Forensic Pathol. 2021 Mar;11(1):24-40. doi: 10.1177/1925362121999414. Epub 2021 Mar 19.
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.
近几十年来，对法医学哲学的关注日益增加，有时还包括这样一个问题：“法医学是何种科学？” 然而，关于这个问题在不同时期、不同地点以及当时普遍存在的焦虑情绪下是如何被不同解读的，却鲜有讨论。在考察了这个问题在美国法律背景下必然具有的独特性质之后，本文回顾了三种回应模式/阶段，它们依次植根于个人权威、综合方法以及灵活解决问题的机构。结论从两个方面应用了这一复杂的遗产：一是澄清近期为法医学提供支持的尝试中存在的不一致和紧张之处，二是为马克斯·霍克关于法医学本质上具有历史性的论点提供更完整的框架。
