cherdano, on 2015-September-14, 08:34, said:
But there was never a scientific community that had accepted these methods. The science wasn't wrong. The only place where these sorts of claims were made was in the courtroom. The "experts" testifying did make a flawed presentation of the state of the art.
you are right, but also wrong, at least as best as I know. The problem with the areas you identified is that they are not, generally, topics that are in the area of pure science or, if they are, not the sort of subject that garners a lot of pure academic research. They are areas of interest to people who are, often, looking not merely to publish but also to be retained as expert consultants by insurance companies or lawyers, or (for many) state (I am speaking of 'government', not individual US states) agencies involved in the prosecution of crimes. Thus there is some element of bias built into the system and the work product will, at least in the early stages, rarely be reviewed by 'experts' who don't share the same agenda. Then you have the funding problem I mentioned, which prevents the defence lawyers from learning the real science or hiring the objective scientists, to the extent that they exist, so the cross is uninformed and therefore rarely effective, especially if the defence can't afford to hire its own experts to testify.
That's a systemic problem and not directly relevant to the arguments I made, which were premised on a level playing field. As an example, I have litigated two relatively esoteric areas of science. One is the use of something known as quantitative electroencephalography to identify traumatic brain injury. qEEG, as it is known, is a recognized, legitimate diagnostic assist when trying to differentiate between certain neurological conditions. A researcher in the US came up with a software package that he claimed, and I believe still claims, allows this to be used in litigation to identify brain damage. It has been successfully used in the US by death penalty defence lawyers (where funding is usually more generous than in most cases) to argue for a lesser sentence on the grounds that the defendant, tho sane, was handicapped by being brain damaged.
The developer marketed his product to neuropsychologists, who don't have the technical expertise to do the job properly, and so we started getting these long very impressive-looking papers, replete with all kinds of journal citations. I was given the funding to hire and speak and/or meet with two of the world's leading experts on electroencephalography, and read approximately 60 peer-reviewed articles on qEEG, and then had a 5 day hearing before a judge, 3 of which were me cross-examining their experts. The court rejected the plaintiff's efforts as 'junk science'. I can provide a link to the decision if you doubt me. On another case we had to deal with the link, if any, between trauma and the progression of MS. In the 50's and 60's, and even to some degree the 70's, MS experts believed there to be a link. More recently, the overwhelming consensus is that there isn't but a few lawyers tried to persuade the courts here that there was. On the defence side, we were in essence given unlimited funding and access to the world's leading experts. I wasn't counsel in the case that decided the issue in the jurisdiction where I work, but I was working on a parallel case that went to trial a little later, and the plaintiff dropped that aspect of the claim at trial. Again, I can send you links if you want.
Those are the kinds of cases, and cross examinations, of which I spoke. And, believe me, when the resources are available, and there really is a scientific consensus against the opinion of a hired gun expert, it is usually demonstrated. When the resources aren't there, or the science hasn't yet got it right, then of course cross examination won't be effective.
All I was saying was that if I were to cross Kit on his initial video-analysis posts I would have a field day with him. He has since backed down, or clarified, so even if there were opportunity, there'd be no point, other than perhaps to persuade the more open-minded bandwagon passengers to think more carefully about uncritical endorsement of desired outcomes. Which was all I was ever protesting. I have trouble believing that you, Arend, are a big fan of uncritical endorsements of desired outcomes. So I don't know why you are so dedicated to attacking almost every post I make. Of course, in fairness, that attitude extends to just about every post I make on any topic
It seems your problems aren't with what I say but with the fact that it is me saying it. Weird, but I guess it gives you something to do.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
Help
)
