[glenstein]

>I generally find expert testimony to be suspect

I have two feelings on this. One of which is alarm because it is a sentiment like this which is the backbone of misinformation believers and spreaders and we're in the worst era of misinformation I think that we've been in in a long time. Certainly the worst since the dawn of the digital age. Experts are right about vaccines. Right about building your savings with a 401k. They're right about using sunscreen. They're right about not ingesting too much sugar. They're right about reading to your kids from an early age and right about the impacts of tariffs on the economy. They're right about climate change. They're right about the Higgs Boson, etc. etc. In almost every case, the people going against the experts on these things are cranks, frauds, or confused conspiracy theorists.

But my other feeling is one of agreement in a very qualified sense. I believe that within the U.S. legal system, people who are presented as experts in certain forms of science, are able to invoke an unearned professional authority and legitimacy that has nothing in common with genuine expertise. When we talk about pseudoscience in the modern age, a lot of the time it's about new age crystals or evolution denial, but I think expert witnesses presented as authoritative in courtrooms have been responsible for generations upon generations of pseudoscience of various types. Everything from penmanship analysis to bite mark analysis to body language experts to, rather remarkably, supposed 911 phone call tonality analysis experts Who can include that wrongly timed emotional tremors or presence or absence of emotions prove the callers involvement in a crime.

And while it might be a gray area, I suspect there's at least a fair amount of crankery or motivated reasoning with hired gun economic experts summoned to Delaware courts to testify in favor of major corporate acquisitions.