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[edit]
- Clarke's three laws
- Newton's laws of motion#Third law
- Politicization of science
- List of eponymous laws
References[edit]
- ^ 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. S2CID 11700389.
There is a saying in American public-relations circles that for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD
- ^ 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
- ^ 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
- ^ 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.