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.
Keywords: Forensic pathology; Frederick Peterson; History of forensic science; Max Houck; Paul Kirk; Philosophy of forensic science.
© The Author(s) 2021.