Contrasting views of science--as a realist enterprise or a social construction--and differing opinions as to whether the link between law and science should be strong or weak, produce roughly four different perspectives on law and science: realism but weak link, realism and strong link, social constructivism and weak link, and social constructivism but strong link. The first three perspectives recur in post-Daubert legal literature, and the fourth appears self-defeating and impractical. I argue, however, that the fourth view is the least problematic and the most appropriate.