Abstract
This paper examines controversies between the child-protective and defense-protective positions in the field of child sexual abuse assessments. It argues that the child-protective position is based on valid empirical generalizations that nevertheless can cause injustice because they are mistaken for scientific laws. It argues that the defense-protective position offers important criticisms that nevertheless can cause injustice because they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific reasoning. Clinical examples of errors in both positions are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.