ABSTRACT
This chapter describes several more nuanced approaches to understanding the relationship between law and science, and attempts to link these to corresponding aspects of what we may call ‘law’s truth’. It shows how different ways of ‘posing the problem’ each have relevant implications for the arduous challenge of finding a just measure of science. Many American commentators blame the growth of ‘junk science’ on their contingent fee system and the relatively easy resort to legal proceedings. For science or other technical evidence to influence legal outcomes it has to be turned into proof in ways compatible with the many specialized rules of procedure and evidence which govern legal processes. The range of potential divergence between legal and scientific solutions to individual cases of harm or injustice goes well beyond the issue of ‘junk science’. Relying on the parties to bring forward their evidence sets severe limits to the nature of legal enquiries.
