Adversaries and Experts: Legal Tradition Versus Empirical Science

The modern courtroom can become a battleground between two epistemologies: the adversarial logic of law and the empirical rigor of science. Using a case involving a neuropsychological exam under Washington Civil Rule 35, this Article explores the tension between these traditions. While medicine embraced the Scientific Revolution, law remains tethered to its medieval Scholastic roots. The Article argues for humility and integration of evidence-based reasoning within the adversarial process.