Chapter Three summarizes scores of empirical studies by sociolegal scholars regarding the actual disputing practices of Americans who experience personal injuries.  (Teachers should find this chapter extremely useful for educating students about the US civil legal system and prevailing patterns of civil disputing among citizens).  Haltom and McCann conclude from this comprehensive review that legal-studies specialists have effectively discredited most of the shaky numbers, glib generalizations, misleading metaphors, and demonstrable insults against lawyers, judges, jurors, witnesses, and plaintiffs on which popularized arguments for tort reform thrive.  However, the authors also contend that existing scholarly data and demonstrations are not as available, accessible, adaptable, or actionable as pop reformers’ common-sense narratives.  Indeed, the very qualities that distinguish rigorous social science significantly limit its potential for influencing mass knowledge and common sense meaning.  The result is profound chasm between the rigorous scholarship of obscure scholars and the deft spin of obvious schemers, especially in our mass-mediated culture.