Re: Economists barred from court?

[andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Daubert and Rule 702 do not allow a judge to exclude
expert evidence merely because there is conflict or
disagreement or varying opinions. As long as the
expert testimony is gebnerated by a reliable method
and based on fact, conflicts are for the jury (or
finder of fact) to decide. Expert testimony is to be
excluded only when the expert is not qualified or the
testimony is not based on a reliable method or not
based on facts. The judge does not have to play
amateur scientist to decide this. It requires no more
knowledge than is required to understand the expert's
opinion and ther basis for it, which would be required
to determine whether it is true in thw first place.
jks

--- Hari Kumar <hari.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com