iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 06/09/2026

When I taught legal writing, I sometimes used this example. Paul Feyerabend, Against Method.

Introduction - 1; Parts 1-20 - 7; Postscript on Relativism - 283

Reposted by Edith Beerdsen

David A. Simon @davidasimon.bsky.social · 20/06/2026

I hosted a conference for a couple years that focused on Junior Scholars. I had to take a hiatus but wonder if people are still interested in doing this again. I am hopeful next spring--but too soon to tell.

2131

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 03/06/2026

Newly added to SSRN - with glitches galore, so apologies if you‘ve already received this through multiple SSRN distribution lists! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Expert Evidence in Times of Skepticism and Distrust
125 Michigan L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2027)

63 Pages Posted: 30 May 2026 Last revised: 31 May 2026
Edith Beerdsen
Temple University James E. Beasley School of Law

Date Written: May 19, 2026

Abstract
Trust in science and scientists is faltering. Additionally, trust in judges as neutral arbiters is at an all-time low. In court, the backdrop of science skepticism, denialism, and distrust is exposing that the frameworks that govern the admissibility of expert evidence are ill-suited to the task of evaluating and applying scientific knowledge for the resolution of civil disputes in a manner that honors accuracy and democratic legitimacy.

Drawing from recent literature from the philosophy of science and theories of deliberative democracy, this Article argues that our existing evidentiary frameworks are based on outdated and incomplete conceptions of the nature of authority and objectivity and a poor fit for resolving issues involving contested science. They misallocate responsibilities between experts, judges, and jurors, misconceiving these actors’ proper roles. They thereby risk a further alienation of those who have already lost their trust in science and the judiciary and, crucially, deprive the jury of the chance to fulfill its rightful epistemic function.

This Article calls for altering both how scientific information is admitted into evidence and how juries interact with it. Skeptical attitudes suggest that we should leave more to the jury, not less. By involving the jury in decisions of admissibility and permitting more active engagement with expert evidence, open-minded consideration of information by a critical audience may be possible. Juror participation is not only a matter of legitimacy and procedure; it is also of epistemic importance.

Keywords: Scientific Evidence, Evidence, Expertise, Objectivity, Deliberative Democracy, Civil Procedure, Civil Litigation

061

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 06/05/2026

THE best conference. Such a good time. (And it's now so big that it's no longer possible to talk to everyone. What a challenge - this flew by!)

050

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 10/04/2026

Over the past 25 years, the average customer has not booked with them again.

010

Reposted by Edith Beerdsen

Martha 🍭 @marthabawn.bsky.social · 07/04/2026

Science happiness is the best happiness

061

Reposted by Edith Beerdsen

Daniel Lakens @lakens.bsky.social · 01/04/2026

A new set of papers, sharing the long-awaited result of several reproducibility and replicability projects, including commentaries, is published today. I look forward to reading the studies, and re-using the data generated! www.nature.com/collections/...

nature.com

Reliable research in the social and behavioural and sciences

Sweeping new investigations probe the replication, robustness and reproducibility of results across the behavioural and social sciences.

02911

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 28/03/2026

I swear I’m not trying to be annoying, but I’d call this 12/8.

020

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 28/03/2026

Alleen is deze foto helaas AI-gegenereerd. Maar vanaf de grond zag het er goed uit hier in Philadelphia.

110

Reposted by Edith Beerdsen

Doron Dorfman @dorfmandoron.bsky.social · 27/03/2026

It was a pleasure to have @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social present her timely and important article, Expert Evidence in Times of Skepticism & Distrust (forthcoming @michlawreview.bsky.social), at today’s @setonhalllaw.bsky.social faculty workshop, sparking an invigorating discussion 🔥🔥🔥

A woman on a podium amid speech in front of an audience of men and women

2117

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 27/03/2026

Thank you so much, @dorfmandoron.bsky.social, for hosting me, and to the whole faculty for all the thoughtful comments. This was a great discussion.

010

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 27/03/2026

This is not just a win, and not even just a win that will improve many people's lives. It is also proof of concept of a form of scholarship that Rachel pioneered. (Make sure to read the whole thread.)

13112

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 26/03/2026

Why is coming up with an idea and having an AI work it into a full article better than publishing the idea only? That way every reader can decide for himself whether to read the idea as is or to prompt an AI for a blog version, podcast version, law-review version, essay version, ELI5 version, etc.

091

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 07/03/2026

It's also an open debate whether blind is better than unblind. There are real pros and real cons for both. Blind peer review can sink good work because of petty opinions, dogmatism, jealousy, etc. In unblinded review, people will at least take a beat to think before saying anything unfair.

130

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 07/03/2026

A platform with a price of admission: for every paper you submit you are required to peer-review three others. Every journal on the platform has access to all the peer reviews. Ideally fully unblinded.

030

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 06/03/2026

Congratulations! Looks like an interesting paper!

000

Reposted by Edith Beerdsen

Alex Klein @alexklein.bsky.social · 06/03/2026

I am thrilled that my latest article, The Dirty Work of Executioners is forthcoming in the UC Irvine Law Review! The acknowledgment footnote here is long—so many people encouraged and inspired me, and asked me hard questions that made my work better. Draft coming soon to SSRN…

3233

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 06/03/2026

The other day, a friend sent a five-line text (about 50 words). An AI bubble popped up to ask if I wanted the text summarized. Who asked for this?

150

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 06/03/2026

This is only half on-topic, but does anyone know why law reviews tend to be coy about how many submissions they receive? It's rare to find an editor who's willing to say whether it's 2,000 or 4,000 or what. Is there an upside to treating the number as a state secret?

100

Reposted by Edith Beerdsen

Shiv Ramdas Mens Rice Activist @nameshiv.bsky.social · 05/03/2026

very aspect of life in this country is designed so that people do not form bonds or relationships with other people, it's wild to watch in action. Never seen divide and conquer applied this rigorously to a domestic population that is not under foreign occupation

611867465

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 05/03/2026

Congratulations! Looks like 2027 will be the year of reading all my friends' books :) Seriously, though, this sounds incredible and I look forward to reading it.

120

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 05/03/2026

Wow, these looks fascinating and I look forward to reading them! Was this the proverbial paper that turned out to be two papers? Congrats on two great placements!

110

Reposted by Edith Beerdsen

Nila Bala @nilabala.bsky.social · 23/02/2026

Happy to share that Developmental Evidence Rules is forthcoming in the California Law Review! What would it mean to take childhood seriously in evidence law? This article takes up that question.

3208

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 23/02/2026

Well, strike that - this issue seems to be fixed! Thank you, @ssrn.bsky.social.

020

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 23/02/2026

I've been wondering if the Google Scholar issue has to do with the missing metadata on SSRN's end. SSRN no longer shows where a paper is published, so what is Google supposed to do with that? @ssrn.bsky.social, any update on whether/when it's going to be fixed?

120

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 20/02/2026

Judicial meekness? Judicial apathy?

120

Reposted by Edith Beerdsen

Rachel Lopez @rlopez.bsky.social · 17/02/2026

Working on Restoring Justice kept me grounded this past year, so I share it w/ excitement & some nervousness. Written w/ Meredith Elizalde, whose son Nick was killed in a shooting at his high school, we argue for a right to restorative justice. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

13115

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 14/02/2026

Thank you! This was such a diverse and multi-interested crowd. I really enjoyed your talk, too. What a great conference.

000

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 12/02/2026

I wonder if this was what the makers of Quiet Posters had in mind ;-)

Screenshot of pearlmania's post, showing up in the "Quiet Posters" feed

032

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 12/02/2026

First time presenting this work to a room of scientists. General reaction to learning about how science is evaluated for use in court: 🤯

182

Reposted by Edith Beerdsen

Daniel Lakens @lakens.bsky.social · 10/02/2026

Everything is ready for the Perspectives on Scientific Error conference that starts tomorrow in Leiden! I look forward to hanging out with the mix of metascientists, philosophers of science, and statisticians! So many old friends will be there (and hopefully some new ones)! #PSE8

0509

Reposted by Edith Beerdsen

Danielle Citron @daniellecitron.bsky.social · 10/02/2026

My latest article with the one and only @spenceroverton.bsky.social called “Digital Ethnonationalism” forthcoming in University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Here is the papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

papers.ssrn.com

14016

Reposted by Edith Beerdsen

Nila Bala @nilabala.bsky.social · 06/02/2026

Thrilled to share that 𝐺𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑡 𝑏𝑦 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑑 has found a home with the Yale Law Journal. This piece examines parental liability regimes and parental rights, and how they are connected by a shared logic that harms children and families. Thank you to all those who read drafts and offered feedback!

76310

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 09/02/2026

This paper came from a fascination with how lawyers try to game the system in litigation and how judges sometimes accept it and sometimes do not. This paper examines the concept of gamesmanship and how courts use it to shape litigants' strategic maneuvering room.

020

Edith Beerdsen @edithbeerdsen.bsky.social · 09/02/2026

NOT a recent acceptance but last Feb's paper now on SSRN, w/ many thanks to the excellent editors at Georgia L. Rev. Full paper: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... (Newer paper still in the cycle & on a very different topic! Sci. ev., skeptics, democracy. On SSRN soon, but lmk if you want to read.)

In civil litigation, strategy is everywhere. Some of it is explicitly envisioned by rules of procedure, but other forms of strategy rely more on clever exploitation of gaps in the rules, sometimes through trickery, surprise, or psychological mind games. The role strategy plays in civil litigation is underexamined, which raises two concerns: first, this lack of attention entrenches strategy by default as a procedural value in competition with accuracy, efficiency, and other procedural values. Second, it amplifies the disadvantages experienced by unrepresented litigants. This Article builds on earlier work to examine how courts shape the space that litigants have for strategic behavior, in service of an inquiry into how that space ought to be shaped.

Battles over the meaning and rightful place of strategy in civil litigation tend to play out in the arena of “gamesmanship,” a term courts use with increasing frequency to refer to behavior in the gray zone between the clearly allowed and the clearly disallowed. Strategic behavior in this realm is often unregulated by rules, only weakly governed by norms, and subject to significant judicial discretion. Judicial decisions in cases involving gamesmanship frequently expose tensions between respect for zealous advocacy and concerns about fairness and accuracy.

This Article makes two contributions to our understanding of the role of strategic behavior in civil litigation. First, it examines the meaning of “gamesmanship” in a litigation context and proposes a categorization of gamesmanlike litigation behavior. Second, it applies this categorization in describing how courts use the term “gamesmanship” and surveys and theorizes how they treat behavior they have thus labeled. I argue that the concept functions as three distinct analytical tools: (1) as an aspect of purposive statutory analysis; (2) as a canon of construction; and (3) as an implied mental-state element. The Article concludes by imagining a different approach.

1172

Reposted by Edith Beerdsen

Itay Ravid @itayravid.bsky.social · 03/02/2026

Another new article of mine is officially out: “(Re)Individualizing Criminal Law,” (67 B.C L. Rev. 255 (2026): lnkd.in/eR9eF7Fv Abstract 👇 & v. short 🧵 1/6

1158