It's not going to be a big secret to any of you over the age of 25 that court cases are often not about right versus wrong but about convincing a jury. And if you want to convince a jury, it helps to make sure you have the right one so choosing members is an art.
What happens when a scientist is told by an attorney that the case needs to be determined by a "preponderance of evidence", meaning damages would be awarded if 51% of the evidence - a coin flip - is on the plaintiff's side, and the scientist notes that even in softer sciences there needs to be a 95% confidence interval (and in experimental physics, if it is not 5 standard deviations, you can kick rocks because your paper is not getting published) so with real money at stake it should require more than 51%, which is basically emotion? Hilarity ensues, that's what.
Someday soon, I hope the Worlds of Law and Science can gain a better understanding of each other. Legal reform demanding a greater burden of proof in civil cases will likely be needed and not just in Washington. And maybe after it does, the reputation of personal injury lawyers will be resuscitated, and health care and insurance costs will be reduced for the rest of us.Additionally, expert medical panels need to be a part of the judicial process. Perhaps that will help avoid the manipulation of 12 scientifically untrained people into awarding prizes based on 51% truth or, in other words, on emotion. Hopefully, plaintiffs will no longer win $330 million based on dubious science, like what occurred in the case glorified by the movie Erin Brockovich.
