Posted on 01/06/2018 9:12:56 AM PST by MtnClimber
Scientists and lawyers do not get along. There's a reason for that. Simply put, scientists and lawyers do not think alike.
I was smacked in the face by this reality when I was called into jury duty in 2011. The case involved a car accident, and the standard in Washington State for the jury to decide in favor of the plaintiff is a "preponderance of evidence," which is a fancy way of saying, "51 percent." Essentially, a coin toss decides if the plaintiff wins a bunch of money.
The judge asked if any of the potential jurors objected to that. I did. "I'm a scientist," I explained, "and I need more evidence than that." So, I was shown the door.*
That experience taught me that scientists and lawyers live in two completely different worlds. Scientists want 95% confidence and margins of error; lawyers want 51% confidence. .........
These are fundamentally irreconcilable worldviews that are forever destined to be in conflict. And the lawyers are winning.
Will Lawyers Destroy Science?
Consider Mark Jacobson, the climate scientist who is suing a prestigious journal for $10 million because it hurt his feelings. There is good reason to believe that the lawsuit will be dismissed, but not before lawyers have collected a nice fee for themselves. Jacobson's attorneys and the journal's attorneys can both make a lot of money arguing with each other, even if the suit never actually goes to trial. Routinely, lawyers are required to solve problems that they themselves created. If something like this were to occur in any other area of life, it would be called racketeering.
(Excerpt) Read more at acsh.org ...
That lying defense and slip-and-fall lawyers become lying democRAT politicians should not surprise anyone.
Will Lawyers Destroy Science = $$$$$$$$$$$$
Amything for a buck
Lawyers destroy American freedom. Can REAL science be far behind?
One must remember the difference between Civil vs Criminal trials. Civil = preponderance of evidence = 51%
Criminal = Beyond a reasonable doubt @ 95%
They lost the case when the opposing lawyer said in his summary to the jury, "Eveyone knows the laws of physics are obeyed in the laboratory but not in rural New Jersey." /headdesk>
On a related note, there is no such thing as “settled science”. The percentage of scientists who believe that Global Warming is “settled science” is also the percentage of scientists who are no longer scientists.
So yeah, lawyers are not really needed to destroy science. It’s being done from within.
You were shown the door because you think analytically. I can promise you that any lawyer who would have been called up for jury duty that day would have also been shown the door.
They don’t want analytical people on juries and that is part of what is wrong with the legal system.
It takes a special kind of stupid to think that preponderance of the evidence equates to a coin flip.
(Plus. This guy reminds me of the OJ juror who argued that a pencil dropped out of sight behind the prosecutor’s table might not hit the floor because the prosecutor might have rigged a hidden bag to catch it.)
The “expert witnesses” are the biggest liars in the courtroom. Particularly those working for the plaintiff lawyers.
Engineers build things, lawyers just get in the way.
Lawyers destroy everything they touch. Lawyers (and accountants) are secondary, derivative players. Pay attention to the limits they set for your actions. But, the minute you start letting them drive the train, get ready for a wreck - - which they will charge you to oversee.
Lieyaws have to obey the laws of Physics, just not in their courtrooms.
Who needs lawyers? The Groupthink of grant-grabbing academics has destroyed science.
Does the DoJ/FBI IG really need 500 Very Special Agents, many of whom could be repurposed to opioid mfg. and dist?
Junk scientists have done a lot of damage to science already. Its not all just external. Some journals will publish garbbage papers for a fee. And some researchers specialize in validating agendas for cash.
Yep,politicians/lawyers. Often one and the same.
Lawyers can’t destroy a method. Science is the scientific method, practiced by geniuses and three year olds and an objective use of logic and fact.
Lawyers will attempt to take down anything for the right fee, though. Depends on who’s paying.
Gravity not just a good idea, IT’S THE LAW.
Precisely. They can certainly suppress its results, but not forever. "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality” - Ayn Rand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.