Re: Economists barred from court?

[Hari Kumar <hari.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re Andie Nachbogebornen: "If Daubert is a defense weapon, and I suspect
it is, it is because firms like mine probably have the money to hire
better experts, .. You don't need an econ degree to do it, just some
understanding of statistics and an operative bullshit detector."
COMMENT: I know nothing about the application of this under USA law, but
it does seem to me that if you insist on the rules of evidence (As
applied in medicine) that in general that is a good thing. The rules of
evidence for medicine [applied to
aetiology-causation/diagnosis/prognosis/therapy etc]  have been
relatively clearly enunciated by Guyatt G & Sackett D - in a couple of
now standard texts.
Despite those, difffering "scientific" opinions naturally still exist.
Therein lies the bit about the amateur-pop-science judges being enabled
to toss things out as being "unsupported by science".
H