Reply #167: Just like bad law, there is also bad science

[Ms. Toad]

Usually that happens on the edge of either field, where the existing case law doesn't dictate a clear result - or where scientific principles/current research doesn't clearly answer the question being asked. In either field, when the envelope is pushed the early path does not always serve well moving forward, and requires correction by future practitioners.

Sometimes those misssteps are innocent - when you're on the cutting edge it's sometimes hard to predict which of two plausible explanations/decisions will ultimately prove correct. Sometimes they are not so innocent, twisted by the bias of either the researcher or judge who is biased by a particular outcome.

I can read some of Scalia's opinions and absolutely agree that his reasoning is well supported by law. I may not agree that that where he ends up is where the law should be, but he isn't wrong based on applying the existing law to the case at hand using the same kind of meticulous, logical reasoning applicable to scientific analysis. (Many of his opinions on criminal matters fall into this category.)

On the other hand - there are times he wanders off the ranch - and the law is completely irrelevant to his position (his opinions in cases involving homosexuality come to mind).

- When I encounter physicians who have problem with reasoning who are treating me or my family, I make it my business to stretch their abilities.