Science Through a Lawyer’s Eyes

Contributed by Edward Sisson, Dr. Crocker’s former lawyer:

Stephen Jay Gould, noted paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, noted that widely-accepted scientific theories are never rejected until someone comes along to offer a more persuasive replacement theory. Unfortunately, we are told that only credentialed scientists are allowed to evaluate or reject scientific theories; laypeople are not permitted to do so.

But an existing theory may be false for reasons evident to any rational layperson. There may be inherent conflicts in its underlying logic or it may rely on falsified assumptions, etc., which a reasoning mind can identify even if the particular person does not have the specialized training necessary to construct an alternative theory. Juries in civil court cases (i.e., laypeople) do this kind of thing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times each year, in product liability cases, design defect cases, medical malpractice cases, patent infringement cases, etc., where an expert for the plaintiff presents a technical theory and the lawyer for the defense, perhaps relying on an expert, identifies holes in the plaintiff’s theory, without having to develop an alternative theory.

The sociological problem in the science world is that there is no funding for the role of a defense-only advocate, whose only job is to poke holes in the plaintiff’s theory, without having to present an alternative theory. In the science world, the only funded career-path is for theory-creators. But, if we had a scientific system in which there was a regular, funded career path for people to debunk existing theories, without replacing them, what we would see is that issues once thought to have been answered by science would suddenly go blank again, leaving the gap re-opened, with nothing replacing it. We would not see a steady, but false, impression of gaps being steadily filled. We would spend less time and money chasing rabbit trails. And we would work on viable alternatives.

The problem is that individuals, by the time they reach college age, are pretty much “set” in their level of intelligence and analytical ability. Many have a sufficient intellectual ability to analyze theories, identify logical inconsistencies, etc. All of these people have the ability, should they wish to, to go into science and develop the knowledge necessary to be able to present credible new theories — but only a few do. Those who choose not to still retain the intellectual ability to discredit theories, and later in life, they may find themselves involved in some situation where they apply their minds to some theory to see if it is internally logically consistent, etc. They should not be ruled out-of-bounds in this, in deference to those few who chose to develop the additional expertise necessary to construct new theories.

Indeed, big firm litigating lawyers (as I was) are a class of just such people: they can pick up the expert reports of the other side’s witnesses, review them, and tear them to pieces with logical analysis, without ever needing to hire their own expert to do that kind of thinking for them.

It is AITSE’s position that this is exactly what lay people should do. This is why our goal is to provide education to enhance scientific understanding and integrity. To promote science based on impartial evaluation of data, not mere consensus. Mr. Sisson was Dr. Crocker’s lawyer in her dispute with George Mason University and wrote the introduction to Free to Think. Buy it here!