The actual process of legal or scientific reasoning often probes the ambiguous and complex nature of the item under investigation. In general, neither discipline tolerates complexity very well. Both a scientist and a judge ultimately have to ejudicate the EVIDENCE (but that evidence may be both biased and incomplete).

The synopsis of scientific experts from lawyers point of view:







The Role of Bias:







If you were to turn over just one card to test the hypothesis, which one would it be?

Few people get this right; apparently testing for disconfirming evidence does not come naturally to most people.

But this is precisely the role that science plays here, searching (testing) for "disconfirming" evidence. The fact that science should proceed along the lines of empirical falsifaction, while historically championed as the way science should work, seldom works that way in the real world. In general, a scientist is rewarded for practicing confirmation bias



This is exactly the problem with Climate Change as a Legal Matter; all of the evidence is not in, and much of the research involves confirmation bias