Proposals for Change

• Author: Alan D. Gold
• Pages: 231-238

Chapter

11:

Proposals

for

Change

THERE

are

three changes that should

now be

compellingly obvious that

would

go a

most substantial

way

towards ensuring

the

reliability

and

validity

of

expert

opinion

evidence offered

in

court.

Using

Science

as a

Practical Litmus Test

for

"Experts"

Since

the

crucial discriminating factor between

good

and bad

expert

opinion lies

in

methodology

and not in

content, knowledge

of

that

methodology,

as

opposed

to

knowledge

of any

particular content,

becomes

the

obvious litmus test

to

initially separate

the

good

from

the

bad. Scientific literacy can,

in

fact,

be

used

as the

basic test

to

discrimi-

nate real experts from

junk

scientists. Knowledge

of the

methods

of

sci-

ence

can and

should

be

used

to

determine

in

effect

who is

worth listening

to in a

courtroom.

The

issues

for all

proposed experts could become:

• Are

they scientifically literate?

• Do

they

know

and

appreciate

the

scientific method?

• Are

they aware

of

illogical reasoning?

It

is

true that passing this test does

not

guarantee

an

absence

of

junk sci-

ence: prominent

and

knowledgeable scientists

can

believe

in

astrology

and

worse.

But

failing that test

—

being

scientifically

illiterate

—

virtual-

ly

ensures

the

presence

of

junk

science.

It

means

the

witness's purported

[*3i]