Letters to the Editor
-
@ Mona
In all cases I've seen so far, actual scientists are saying that global warming is real, and mostly agree that it is provoked by human activities. And those who oppose this point of view turn out to be not real scientist and to be taking money for Exxon or somebody. What does it mean, in this context, to be wary of politicized science? Who's doing the politicization ? Everybody purports to want a neutral evaluation, but it's fairly easy to see who is working against that goal.
If 99.99% of scientist say that is horseshit, should the jury weight equally that one "expert," and the opposing expert testifying for the other side and all the legions of scientists behind him who says the seed seller is not peddling a toxin
Yes, according to some, they should weight equally. But seriously, it is a rather disturbing issue, but as kovie argued before, it presents a problem form a libertarian point of view. How could you implement a rule that a lone scientist with a different opinion from 99.9% of his colleagues should not be allowed to testify? By requiring experts to pass some sort of certification exam in front of a special appointed committee? That would seem to introduce more regulatory power and go in the direction of politicizing science even more. Otherwise, judges, or juries, would have to form their own opinion about what the experts are telling them. Clearly, they don't have the training for that. And even if the counterpart can find a more trustworthy expert, that doesn't mean automatically that he would be able to convince the jury. What would they base their judgment on? Who can testify more deftly? Or decide based on the respective credentials? Back to square 1.
-
Wow you hippies have really gone downhill
WTF do you think you're all on Maury?
-
@Kovie
And I continue to find it perplexing that it is you who is making the clearly anti-libertarian argument here, because I'm clearly the one making the libertarian one.
What you seem to not understand is that the scientific "expert" is allowed to state facts based in his or her so-called expertise. It is what makes them different from a "fact" (regular) witness testifying only about on-the-ground matters in the case at hand.
If the court promiscuously lets expert witnesses testify regardless of any bona fides, facts get lost as mattering. Courts must maintain some rigid controls on who gets to relate theory-laden testimony, or justice (and science as its tool) dies.
-
@engsoc
Yes, according to some, they should weight equally. But seriously, it is a rather disturbing issue, but as kovie argued before, it presents a problem form a libertarian point of view. How could you implement a rule that a lone scientist with a different opinion from 99.9% of his colleagues should not be allowed to testify?
Not for any of the libertarians I know. In a very rare case, the lone genius may be correct, but 99% of the time he or she is not. And someone whose life or liberty is at risk should not have to suffer testimony of, say, the random and isolated UC Berkeley prof who claims he is psychic and "knows" the guy did it. Not unless science as a community has via some peer review or other method lent some patina of credibility, should a person's life or liberty hang on such "expert" testimony.
-
@Barb
Digital Dave
"Merely being eavesdropped upon is not in and of itself a type of harm. To have standing one must show that he has been injured, not merely spied upon."
I would disagree. If you have wiretapped me without my knowledge and without due cause (warrant) there HAS been harm done. I have the reasonable expectation of privacy in my communications (oral and written.) The same way I have the expectation of privacy when I sit on the john with the bathroom door closed only to later find out I've been videotaped.....and ALL of those cases have been adjudicated in favor of the victims who WERE found to have been harmed.
Further, why are there laws making illegal audio/video recording of another party without that party's knowledge. Hence, the disclaimer advisement and "beep" tones when you ARE being recorded.
I think I may have been misunderstood. I was not suggesting that a violation of one's privacy is harmless, but merely that it does not AUTOMATICALLY constitute an injury. According to GG, one must show that one has suffered an injury to have standing. I was merely trying to split the concept of injury away from the concept of being personally targeted in an eavesdropping scheme that affected a significant percentage of our society. Since demonstrating that one was injured is necessary, and showing that one was spied upon is not necessary, let's focus our discussion on whether or not the Sixth Circuit Court actually addressed the issue at hand.
BTW, from your other reply to this post I see that you find the shroud of secrecy to be a fundamentally flawed piece of legerdemain, leading to injustice like this virtually every time. I agree wholeheartedly. Since I presume that GG feels the same, he spent quite a lot of energy defending the merits of the requirement for standing but in a manner that does NOT suggest he likes it any more than we do. However, having read about the nature of the national secrets cases, I understand that this court is not about to overturn the vast body of case law precedents that simply say that justice be damned when secrets are involved. Basically this means that the government cannot be required to surrender the facts in discovery, but it does not shield them from legal challenges that do not require discovery.
So fine, let's fight the shroud of secrecy. But let's also fight the case we've got in front of us, one that we can and should win without the need of discovery.
-
Mona
Not being a lawyer I honestly don't know what the guidelines and procedures are for who can testify and for what purpose in either a criminal or civil case. Clearly, germaneness should be one test, as is genuine expertise in the subject matter underlying the case. But who gets to set and enforce those standards? And how do you know when an actual expert isn't lying?
Not being a lawyer, I would guess that the opposing counsels get to do that except in obvious cases (e.g. a baby is asked to testify as to who shot someone 2 years before they were born). But most often, I'd guess that it's up to the lawyers, not the court, even if the judge "knows" that they're hearing outright lies and nonsense. The courts are there to mediate, not litigate.
And being tasked with determining who's right and wrong, who's expert and quack, who's telling the truth and who's lying, just strikes me as generally outside the courts' jurisdiction. No, it's not "fair", I suppose. But the court are not about fairness, but justice, which is not the same thing.
And even then, their only job is to make it possible for justice to be reached, but not to actually do it themselves. They are there to make sure that both sides can have their cases heard and adjudicated properly, but not to vett each side's case for soundness, effectiveness or veracity. They only get to weigh in on procedure, and in the final ruling, but not otherwise.
And furthermore, I have a big problem with your contention that 99% of the time, a lone dissenter "expert" is either lying or a quack. Perhaps, but I am reminded of one such famous 1%er who was blocked by the courts from "testifying" as to what he knew to be the truth, but whom everybody else--including the courts--"knew" to be a lie.
Galileo.
Are the courts to now play Grand Inquisitor in addition to nanny? I think not.
Instead, their job is to make sure each side plays by the rules (which allow artful lying, I suspect), and then render their decision.