Reflections on the glyphosate cancer ruling: Citing court decisions is common tactic among science deniers

Most people have probably seen the recent news that Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289 million following the ruling by a California jury that Monsanto’s glyphosate (a.k.a. Roundup) is dangerous and likely contributed to Dewayne Johnson’s cancer.

…

I want to discuss why trials like this one are inherently problematic. Citing court rulings is an extremely common tactic among science deniers (anti-vaccers do it all the time), but it is not a logically valid tactic because courts don’t determine what is and is not a scientific fact.

Related on the SLP

Supreme Court agrees to review Bayer’s request to block lawsuits claiming federally-approved herbicide glyphosate causes cancer Bayer’s legal woes multiply as chemical giant battles onslaught of glyphosate, dicamba lawsuits

Guinea-Bissau halts widely condemned RFK Jr.-backed vaccine trial that would have withheld life-saving vaccines from thousands of newborns

‘Disillusioned’: Controversial RFK Jr. ally and MAHA leader Calley Means quits Trump advisory role

Supreme Court blocks Trump’s order halting transgender surgeries and hormone treatments for inmates

The first major problem is simply that juries don’t consist of experts in the relevant scientific field. As I’ve talked about before, science is complicated. It takes years of carefully training, study, and hands-on experience to learn everything that you need to know to be able to properly evaluate scientific evidence. The notion that an untrained jury is going to master that over the course of a trail is absurd.

Read full, original article: Courts don’t determine scientific facts