Gibson's law

In public relations,[1] and in the practice of law, Gibson's law holds that "For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD."[2] The term specifically refers to the conflict between testimony of expert witnesses called by opposing parties in a trial under an adversarial system of justice.[3] It is also applied to conflicting scientific opinion injected into policy decisions by interested parties creating a controversy to promote their interests.[4]

See also

References
  1. Proctor, Robert .N. (2004). "Should medical historians be working for the tobacco industry?". The Lancet. 363 (9416): 1174–1175. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15981-3. PMID 15081644. There is a saying in American public-relations circles that for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD
  2. Lewontin, Richard C.; Singh, Rama S. (2001). Thinking about evolution: historical, philosophical, and political perspectives. Volume two. Robert N. Proctor. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 568. ISBN 0-521-62070-8. 'For every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite Ph.D.' Gibson's Law
  3. Zingrone, N. (March 2002). "Controversy and the problems of parapsychology". Journal of Parapsychology. 66 (19): 3. Retrieved 2007-08-05. ...controversy flows from a "truth" that encapsulates the ease with which both prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys can always find a crucial and credible scientific expert to testify on behalf of their own case and against the crucial and credible scientific expert hired by their opponents
  4. Hess, David J. (1997). Science studies: an advanced introduction. New York: New York University. p. 94. ISBN 0-8147-3564-9. Proctor borrowed “Gibson's law” from public relations research and introduced the term “smokescreen effect” as two important techniques for inducing controversy to promote interests.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.