In this paper I report a qualitative study of a series of court decisions concerning the meanings of science and the gold standard of special education research. I describe two sets of court proceedings and subsequent decisions that considered the admissibility of statements purportedly given by disabled children using a strategy known as facilitated communication. The legal decisions focused on the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. I draw on Minow's descriptions and critique of three approaches to legal analysis to interrogate the two court decisions. I have argued that the legal system privileges a particular kind of scientific discourse, based on the traditional scientific method that emphasizes empiricist forms over questions of rights or value. This discourse dismisses and disqualifies forms of knowing and the subjects who claim to know about their own lives. (Contains 5 notes.)