You do realize that scientists and physicians testified on the science and treatment in this case, right? The jury didn’t just imagine this stuff. And hey, nice disrespect for juries. They’re a cornerstone of democracy and if not perfect, the best avenue for justice we have.
-
-
I have seen much of the evidence presented and a lot of it is bad science. No one can avoid the hate aimed at Monsanto. That’s clear from reading the comments I see here and Facebook. This is Erin Brockovich all over on a bigger scale.
-
Monsanto created some of that itself with its overreaching seed monopoly and IP litigation against small farmers. It has tossed the whole idea of basic PR to the wind for years. Regardless, the jurors were screens for bias. Are you saying it’s counsel wasn’t competent?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Please, untag me from this useless discussion. Not you, Mr. Draco. Block will handle you.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Someone who isn't trained in scientific methods are more likely to a) undervalue good science showing no association (unsexy), and b) overvalue bad science showing an association (sexy). Science isn't up for debate and shouldn't be decided in the courtroom.
-
Scientific statements are not mere opinions, but facts. It's a crucial error of our media landscape to suggest that every topic can be narrowed down to a "pros and cons" discussion where every opinion is weighed equally. This may be true for politics, but never for science.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You don’t just get to stand up and present whatever testimony you want. There are threshold requirements (gen acceptance, testable/tested, etc) that have to be met first, and I’m assuming that happened here in pretrial motions. Beyond that, the jury is the finder of fact.
-
Is it really? Tell that to the dozens of wrongly convicted people (including several who lost their lives) after being sent down for crimes it's later shown they did not commit. This "expert" for example, responsbile for one guy doing 17 years. http://truthinjustice.org/deaver.htm
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Well then, we should just use juries of random idiots off the street to tell us everything.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No, they followed the evidence they agreed with or were convinced was true. Again, this is deciding scientific truths not on the evidence but on which legal team was more convincing. Not the way scientific issues should be decided.
-
Several people have made the point about a "jury trial" here but from what I've seen on the idiot box, some cases are can't be tried if the defendant has been unfairly exposed in the press. On that measure alone, Monsanto (and glyphosate by extension) should never have been tried
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
