re: #866 calcajun

The general problem— emphasis on “general” — that (and I do not have time to cite references) is that there have been examples in my own life in litigation where I see “experts”; doctors, engineers, etc. give opinions that support a certain position.

I think LVQ answered your comment perfectly at 866; I only have this to add: when you’re talking about litigation and trial ‘experts’, these are people who are being paid for their testimony and time (in most cases). So it’s not the same as the process of peer reviewed science that is, as LVQ says, largely immune from politics.

One could always find an individual ‘expert’, no matter how sleazy and how flimsy the credentials, who will be willing to testify to anything for a fee. Since the general public doesn’t know how to evaluate competing scientific credentials (since they’re not in the field), this translates into a general disgust for and suspicion of all so-called experts.