Quote:
Originally Posted by DWB
Do you honestly think that with those multiple court cases, with MILLIONS of dollars at sake, and the legal precedent it may create, that experts from both sides of the fence were not brought in? Or do you believe they let the local sheriff make the final call?
|
Do you realize that attorneys will pay experts in name only to find, or create, "research" to "demonstrate" their side so that they'll win and get paid very often? Like the guy who started this anti-vax crusade recently that so many of them view as some demigod of sorts. Again, it's silly and doesn't say anything at all. Academic research that's well cited and accepted in the community after it's been rigorously tested and re-tested does. The entire purpose of my lawyer in a DUI case is to win at all costs - even if I DID drink and drive, his job is to convince the court that I'm not guilty of it, even if there's evidence to the contrary. That's really basic and easy(for me anyways - I guess it just went over some peoples' head) to understand. On the other hand, the job of the prosecutor is to demonstrate that I DID in fact drink and drive, even if maybe I didn't at all.
I'll say this: I trust someone with rigorous scientific training over anyone with a law degree - whether it be with babysitting my dogs while on vacation, or about scientific matters.
