Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At RealClearScience: Replace juries with scientists!


We are told that “The gold standard of expert-determined scientific evidence should be the new standard in America’s court system”:

A recent poll of Americans conducted by the Center for Truth in Science found that 61% of those surveyed believe juries should not award settlements unless there is consistent scientific evidence to do so. In fact, they believe that juries themselves are not qualified to make statements or decisions about the safety of a product or ingredient.

Rather, respondents believe that court-appointed panels of independent scientific experts are the “gold standard” when it comes to determining settled science amongst contradictory and conflicting claims.

Joseph Annotti, “Juries’ Scientific Guesswork Has No Place in Courts” at RealClearScience

So. In a science world where Scientific American broke with a 175-year tradition to endorse a candidate for U.S. President, we are still supposed to believe in some objective gold standard of science?

Precisely what those people GAVE UP is any claim to be considered objective. Sorry. Scientists can’t just deke in and out of objectivity whenever it suits them. And they’ll sure miss it when it’s gone.

See also: Scientific American breaks with 175-year tradition, endorses Joe Biden for US President. They can break with tradition in this way if they want, of course. But then they will no longer be able to say that their science is not tainted with (drenched in?) politics. Which is why, no matter what the crisis, no one did it in the past. The outcome, no matter who wins the U.S. election, will be reduced public trust in science. Scientific American could well find itself down there with “media” generally, in terms of public trust.

Is the phrase, "determining settled science amongst contradictory and conflicting claims", in this piece an oxymoron? If there are "contradictory and conflicting claims", then how can the science be "settled"? Fasteddious
Belfast, Thanks for the additional insight. And if I might add, we ID advocates at UD know first hand how blind supposed 'scientific experts' can be to their own biases. We have seen it first hand from supposed experts on Darwinian evolution countless times right here on UD. Not to mention the Dover trial where the 'literature bluff' by the 'Darwinian experts' was used to great effect in order to win that case. As Michael Crichton said, and as we have learned here at UD first hand, "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had."
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period." Michael Crichton http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
News, Okay, so this has nothing to do with the article--good job, by the way--but I had to look up the term "deke', and it turns out it's one of those Canadian things. Per Wikipedia: A deke feint or fake is an ice hockey technique whereby a player draws an opposing player out of position or is used to skate by an opponent while maintaining possession and control of the puck.[1] The term is a Canadianism formed by abbreviating the word decoy.[2] That's a word that this south of the border guy is going to use in the future! OldArmy94
Good comment, BA. At present the juries sift through opposing experts called by each side. Ideally, the expert is cross-examined by counsel who is assisted by an expert who has found flaws in the expert opinion provided earlier, and a jury of experts would just feed on the experts provided by either side. And often the issue is just probability, rather than certainty. Off topic and related to OOL, can the editors provide some guidance on this - reported in Chemical Chemical World https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/algorithm-discovers-how-six-simple-molecules-could-evolve-into-lifes-building-blocks/4012505.article?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=8accfbb4ad-briefing-dy-20201001&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-8accfbb4ad-44137781 Belfast
"It is part of the human condition to have implicit biases—and remain blissfully ignorant of them. Academic researchers, scientists, and clinicians are no exception; they are as marvelously flawed as everyone else.,,," https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/opinion-bias-is-unavoidable-40630 bornagain77
They'll miss it when it's gone? Why? It's already gone, and "scientists" have all the power and money BECAUSE it's gone. They can literally call in army troops to bind and gag and jail and kill infidels. For psychopaths this is perfect heaven. For everyone else it's misery and mayhem and death, which makes it all the more delightful for the scientists. polistra

Leave a Reply