[ertyuip]

> I'm not happy that some random jury's opinion on medicine or science is being touted as any sort of authority on the matter.

Well you never sat on the jury so you dont know what information was presented to them. Obviously enough data was presented to them to form a conclusion though.

[rndgermandude]

You're talking about juries from the same nation, even same state, as the jury who was utterly impressed by "if it does not fit, you must acquit!", right? Juries, that suffer from the CSI Effect[1]. Juries that not only are made up of scientific laypersons but judicial laypersons. Juries, that have been shown to fuck up every 1 in 8 criminal cases[2], where the burden of proof is supposed to be a lot higher than in a civil case, such as this one.

So, I am not convinced about your use of "obviously".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect

[2] https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/docs/workingpa...

[Aeolun]

If the only thing that happened during a trial was the counsel standing up and saying ‘Dear people of the jury, this man is GUILTY!’ that would be enough data for a jury to form a conclusion. That doesn’t mean the data was any good.

[ende]

You're grossly overestimating the ability of an innumerate body with insufficient understanding of statistical concepts to be able to interpret data.