This anthology brings together thirteen major essays by leading scholars and researchers in multiple fields across the sciences and humanities. In addition, each essay is accompanied by a never-before-published critical response and a rejoinder by the author of the original essay.

Understand better what you're learning in Family Law class and prepare effectively for exams by applying concepts as you learn them. This study guide includes over 210 multiple-choice and short-answer questions arranged topically for ease of use during the semester, plus an additional set of 28 questions comprising a comprehensive "practice exam." For each multiple-choice question, Professor Strasser provides a detailed answer that indicates which of four options is the best answer and explains thoroughly why that option is better than the other three options. Each short-answer question is designed to be answered in fifteen minutes or less. For these questions, Professor Strasser provides a thoughtful, comprehensive, yet brief model answer.

The Concentrate Q&As are a result of a collaboration involving hundreds of law students and lecturers from universities across the UK. The series offers you better support and a greater chance to succeed on your law course than any of the competitors. 'A sure-fire way to get a 1st class result' (Naomi M, Coventry University) 'My grades have dramatically improved since I started using the OUP Q&A guides' (Glen Sylvester, Bournemouth University) 'These first class answers will transform you into a first class student' (Ali Mohamed, University of Hertfordshire) 'I can't think of better revision support for my study' (Quynh Anh Thi Le, University of Warwick) 'I would strongly recommend Q&A guides. They have vastly improved my structuring of exam answers and helped me identify key components of a high quality answer' (Hayden Roach, Bournemouth University) '100% would recommend. Makes you feel like you will pass with flying colours' (Elysia Marie Vaughan, University of Hertfordshire) 'My fellow students rave about this book' (Octavia Knapper, Lancaster University) 'The best Q&A books that I've read; the content is exceptional' (Wendy Chinenye Akaigwe, London Metropolitan University) 'I would not hesitate to recommend this book to a friend' (Blessing Denhere, Coventry University)

What is required for something to be evidence for a hypothesis? In this fascinating, elegantly written work, distinguished philosopher of science Peter Achinstein explores this question, rejecting typical philosophical and statistical theories of evidence. He claims these theories are much too weak to give scientists what they want--a good reason to believe--and, in some cases, they furnish concepts that mistakenly make all evidential claims a priori. Achinstein introduces four concepts of evidence, defines three of them by reference to "potential" evidence, and characterizes the latter using a novel epistemic interpretation of probability. The resulting theory is then applied to philosophical and historical issues. Solutions are provided to the "grue," "ravens," "lottery," and "old-evidence" paradoxes, and to a series of questions. These include whether explanations or predictions furnish more evidential weight, whether individual hypotheses or entire theoretical systems can receive evidential support, what counts as a scientific discovery, and what sort of evidence is required for it. The historical questions include whether Jean Perrin had non-circular evidence for the existence of molecules, what type of evidence J. J. Thomson offered for the existence of the electron, and whether, as is usually supposed, he really discovered the electron. Achinstein proposes answers in terms of the concepts of evidence introduced. As the premier book in the fabulous new series Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science, this volume is essential for philosophers of science and historians of science, as well as for statisticians, scientists with philosophical interests, and anyone curious about scientific reasoning.

To battle the obesity epidemic in America, health care professionals and policymakers need relevant, useful data on the effectiveness of obesity prevention policies and programs. Bridging the Evidence Gap in Obesity Prevention identifies a new approach to decision making and research on obesity prevention to use a systems perspective to gain a broader understanding of the context of obesity and the many factors that influence it.

John Banville’s stunning powers of mimicry are brilliantly on display in this engrossing novel, the darkly compelling confession of an improbable murderer. Freddie Montgomery is a highly cultured man, a husband and father living the life of a dissolute exile on a Mediterranean island. When a debt comes due and his wife and child are held as collateral, he returns to Ireland to secure funds. That pursuit leads to murder. And here is his attempt to present evidence, not of his innocence, but of his life, of the events that lead to the murder he committed because he could. Like a hero out of Nabokov or Camus, Montgomery is a chillingly articulate, self-aware, and amoral being, whose humanity is painfully on display.

Scientific sleuthing and slip-ups in the investigations of fifteen famous cases Ranging from the Turin Shroud and the suspicious death of Napoleon Bonaparte to the murder cases of Dr. Sam "The Fugitive" Sheppard and O. J. Simpson, A Question of Evidence takes readers inside some of the most vexing forensic controversies of all time. In each case, Colin Evans lays out the conflicting medical and scientific evidence and shows how it was used or mishandled in reaching a verdict. Among the other cases: the assassination of JFK, the strange history of Alfred Packer (the only convicted American cannibal), the death of Vatican banker Roberto Calvi, and the trials of Lindy Chamberlain (the "dingo baby" case) and Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald (the case recounted in Fatal Vision). Though the science of forensics has helped solve a huge number of crimes, it's clear from A Question of Evidence that many cases are more open than shut. Colin Evans (Pembroke, UK) is the author of the popular Casebook of Forensic Detection (Wiley: 0-471-28369-X) as well as Great Feuds in History (Wiley: 0-471-38038-5).

A guide to science teaching focuses on literacy and inquiry to increase students' interest in science, improve their analysis skills, and increase their science writing skills.

With the popularity of crime dramas like CSI focusing on forensic science, and increasing numbers of police and prosecutors making wide-spread use of DNA, high-tech science seems to have become the handmaiden of law enforcement. But this is a myth,asserts law professor and nationally known expert on police profiling David A. Harris. In fact, most of law enforcement does not embrace science—it rejects it instead, resisting it vigorously. The question at the heart of this book is why. »» Eyewitness identifications procedures using simultaneous lineups—showing the witness six persons together,as police have traditionally done—produces a significant number of incorrect identifications. »» Interrogations that include threats of harsh penalties and untruths about the existence of evidence proving the suspect’s guilt significantly increase the prospect of an innocent person confessing falsely. »» Fingerprint matching does not use probability calculations based on collected and standardized data to generate conclusions, but rather human interpretation and judgment.Examiners generally claim a zero rate of error – an untenable claim in the face of publicly known errors by the best examiners in the U.S. Failed Evidence explores the real reasons that police and prosecutors resist scientific change, and it lays out a concrete plan to bring law enforcement into the scientific present. Written in a crisp and engaging style, free of legal and scientific jargon, Failed Evidence will explain to police and prosecutors, political leaders and policy makers, as well as other experts and anyone else who cares about how law enforcement does its job, where we should go from here. Because only if we understand why law enforcement resists science will we be able to break through this resistance and convince police and prosecutors to rely on the best that science has to offer.Justice demands no less.