View Single Post
  #5  
Old March 21st 19, 12:45 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default BBC: Miscarriages of justice by science-ignorant juries

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 9:56:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 04:34:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 9:46:16 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
The average person's knowledge of science or the processes it uses is pitiable. People cry about the innocent being convicted, they even make TV shows about people who try to help them. But what about products? Science-ignorant juries are one the main causes of incorrect outcomes of lawsuits and criminal trials. Good example is Monsanto week killer, Roundup. No evidence at ALL that it is harmful, NONE. Yet a moron jury awards millions to someone who contracted cancer in an age group PRONE to it naturally. I saw an ad for some ambulance-chasing firm assuring asbestos workers that "even if you smoked your whole life, and contracted lung-cancer, you could be entitled to damages!" Disgusting.

The case:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47633086

The science:

https://www.google.com/search?q=non-...2lEa M:&vet=1


The jury would have listened to the evidence that was presented and made their best decision based on it. The defense must not have done as good a job of presenting evidence as they could have.

From my point of view, all herbicides and pesticides are guilty until proven innocent.


That's a reasonable position... but it isn't the role of juries to
assess whether chemicals are dangerous, but of scientific inquiry.


Studies seem to show that farmers, as a group, are healthier in most ways than the general population. Maybe it helps to have robust health in order to be a farmer in the first place. Or maybe farming is a healthy lifestyle.

So when circumstantial evidence shows up that something might be causing otherwise healthy farmers to develop a disease at a higher rate than the general population, it's time to find out what that something might be. Then too, maybe farmers get NHL because they are less likely to succumb to more common diseases first.

Until "scientific inquiry" actually provides a definitive answer, juries will have to decide based on what they are told.