ABSTRACT

The apparently trivial idea that there are circumstances in which the exercise of the law cannot disregard the opinion of experts has been the target of severe criticism for at least 150 years. What I call “epistemic negationism” is something that becomes apparent whenever this idea is criticized on the grounds that there are attributes intrinsic to science that render it innocuous when used as an aid in the resolution of legal disputes. What is denied, in this case, is not necessarily the epistemic value of science, but the possibility of it effectively being useful when one counts on it to obtain answers that, in principle, only science can offer. How can this special type of negationism come up in the public debate and, once present, what does it look like?

KEYWORDS:
Epistemic negationism; Law; Expert knowledge; Junk science; Daubert