On the other hand, a legal dispute appears to proceed on an almost reverse basis; a legal case starts with already established laws, which each party applies to a series of facts with a view to creating a hypothesis, which then becomes that party’s case, and the judge then decides which of the two cases she prefers. And the validity of published scientific discoveries can be confirmed or falsified by repeating the published experiments, whereas the best the law can do about judicial decisions is a sort of peer review, namely by way of an appeal to a higher court; and as a recent study in the journal Nature showed, peer review is not always a guarantee of accuracy.
This is a striking personal account recently given by an English legal gentleman before the Royal Society in London. His career spans formal scientific education, initial research experience, and a professional transition to the law. As of this writing he is President of the UK Supreme Court. He is Lord Neuberger.
These lecture notes are his verbatim account of the conceptual/philosophical voyage through the years and gives all of us a valuable view regarding scientific “binary thinking” contrasted with legal “logic” suppositions and moral proclamations.
Here is a quote of modest reflection:
” I believe that my scientific training has been valuable in my career in the law.”
And then he drops the bombshell:
“The explanation, I said, was plain: it is far easier to switch from a more rigorous subject to a less rigorous subject than the reverse.”
The “takeaways” will produce some insight.
Lord Neuberger (Long read)
Trial by Media 