The Supreme Court is taking suspect science seriously. Conservative groups have worked for years for

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

that.

Earlier this month, as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over Mississippi’s restrictive abortion law in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the justices gave serious consideration to dubious science. This was not the first time.

For decades, right-wing funders and advocates have invested in institutions and individual researchers that will question scientific consensus and advance unproven theories. The resulting misinformation has distorted discussions of climate change, covid-19 and other issues. The news media, the White House, Congress, executive agencies and many other institutions have launched initiatives to correct the record and improve public understanding.

Our research suggests that the investment in the politics of doubt has also been aimed at the courts. Rather than investing in replicable scientific inquiry, various organizations fight science by peddling doubt and discord.

Science and the courts

For years, partisans have been fighting over whether accepted science should guide decisions on thorny policy issues such as climate change, vaccines, contraception and partisan gerrymandering. Conservative policymakers regularly dismiss scientific findings as “fake news.” When battles over laws touching on these subjects reach the courts, judges aren’t necessarily equipped to discern which scientific claims are reliable and which are disreputable assertions.

For instance, in Gill v. Whitford, a case about partisan gerrymandering, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dismissed a statistical method for calculating the democratic costs as “sociological gobbledygook.” During her nomination hearings, Amy Coney Barrett similarly disregarded climate science when asked about her views on climate change. “I’m certainly not a scientist,” she answered, later saying, “I will not express a view on public policy, especially one that is politically controversial.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-supreme-court-is-taking-suspect-science-seriously-conservative-groups-have-worked-for-years-for-that/ar-AARPZoa

The idiocracy is here.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. That's the essential problem with law school.

Nothing is fully right, nothing is fully wrong. Arguments for all sides can always be made. So lawyers don't learn anything about how to judge the actual facts. They learn nothing about the scientific method. Like too many people they think "theory" means "wild-assed guess" which is how most people use that word.

Evolution is just a theory, they say. Gravity is just a theory.

My Son The Astronomer long ago taught me to use "hypothesis" instead. Because if you can't test your idea, it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis.