Proving causation: the holism of Warrant and the Atomism of Daubert

As my title indicates, [this conference] focuses on causation evidence in toxic-tort litigation; and as my sub-title suggests, it makes two main arguments, the first epistemological and the second legal. The epistemological argument is that, under certain conditions, as congeries of evidence warrants a conclusion to a higher degree than any of its components alone would do; the legal argument, interlocking with this, is that our evidence law imposes a kind of atomism than can actually impede the process of arriving at the conclusion most warranted by evidence - the effects of wich have been specially salient to causation eveidence in toxic-tort case