This is probably an interesting discussion to have elsewhere, but you're simply wrong on the reliability of experts.
Just from this case alone: C&V were both professors and they produced an abomination of a report. Hellmann was an expert judge and produced an abomination of a report. Stefanoni was an experienced expert and made serious errors. The digestion testimony actually showed complete lack of knowledge of anything other than a few paragraphs in a forensics textbook; moreover it was contradictory on several points between experts who came up with wildly different ranges and starting points. The ability to put an error bound on a range and start it at the correct point is basic competence, yet they lacked it, without even getting in Tlag and the significance of the empty duodenum.
The reverence for experts is common but they're as mistaken and error prone about their field of expertise as the guy on the street is about everyday stuff.
I agree though that self selected experts are necessarily worthless, as experts run the gamut of opinion and motivation and honesty so there will always be some professor or ex FBI douchebag loudly convinced of something that just isn't true.
Quote:
It's not so much that I hold them in reverence but I need a convincing argument that they're wrong.
You were presented highly convincing, in fact conclusive evidence that the experts very wrong on digestion, and yet you still held up the experts, being totally disbelieving that a guy on the internet could be right and four experts wrong. This is essentially the same instinct that FatTony is using even if yours is filtered through greater sophistication.
Last edited by Truthsayer; 04-17-2013 at 12:52 PM.