in response to a presidential executive order, the national mathematics advisory panel issued a controversial report in march 2008. the report is significant because of its historical genesis, its subject matter--learning--and the strong position that the report takes on the primacy of quantitative methods in education research. i briefly introduce the report, and examine the argumentative grammar used to justify the report's position on ``scientific evidence'' in mathematics education research. as appropriate, i will weave in points made by commentaries on the report from leaders in the field. these commentaries will appear in a special december 2008 issue of the \textit{educational researcher} journal, for which i served as guest editor.