- #1
- 11,308
- 8,744
https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/b49101a8-ad23-44dc-9500-ecec551c08b8.pdf
This was unexpected. In a 55 page decision from the Superior Court of DC, the judge said the following.
The scientist litigator, and his expert witnesses said:
It seems to me that the judge gets it, and the scientist(s) did not.
This example could also serve to illustrate the difference between a post in a PF thread and a paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal. Here on PF we strive to educate about science and engineering as known in the peer reviewed literature. If some of our members do new science, they prepare it for the higher standard of peer review, not post it here. The judge did a good job of explaining the difference.
This was unexpected. In a 55 page decision from the Superior Court of DC, the judge said the following.
[A]s gatekeeper, the Court cannot allow an expert to testify concerning documents and articles that they have reviewed, unless the expert can establish that they have used some technique or methodology that systematically gathers, organizes and catalogs the documents such that another expert with similar training could follow the same procedure and arrive at the same result...
The methodologies of the expert must be grounded in the scientific method, such that another person with similar expertise could replicate them. See Daubert 509 U.S. at 591. Reviewing a selection of documents, summarizing them, and giving an opinion about their conclusions is not a proper methodology grounded in the scientific method
The scientist litigator, and his expert witnesses said:
When asked about the methodologies that she used in this case, Dr. Oreskes responded: "If you want me to tell you what my method is, it's reading and thinking. We read. We read documents. And we think about them."
It seems to me that the judge gets it, and the scientist(s) did not.
This example could also serve to illustrate the difference between a post in a PF thread and a paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal. Here on PF we strive to educate about science and engineering as known in the peer reviewed literature. If some of our members do new science, they prepare it for the higher standard of peer review, not post it here. The judge did a good job of explaining the difference.