• iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, context matters, I’m mostly talking about the ones employed in a civil litigation context.

    I would say those approached by journalists are less likely to be in on the take.

    • rexxit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what I’m talking about also. Experts who are being paid to express an opinion, but in a circumstance where their peers would hold a consensus opinion that opposes what they are stating in court. Those experts are mercenaries.

      • iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just saw this, but yeah, definitely. I just wanted to be clear that I’m not dumping on experts in general lol I think people took offense.

        And I think it’s even more dangerous than that, it’s not just people providing a solitary or fringe supported theory or conclusion.

        Especially with a test like what was described, if you get an expert to put their thumb on the scales of an already pretty cloudy issue, it’s even more effective in a case. If they’re mainly doing that to help line their pockets, they’ll be more likely to play fast and loose with their statements.