I learned long ago (at the beginning of my legal career) that a determined litigant can essentially cook up expert testimony on demand as needed to further some tendentious goal or other.
It is dressed up to be "scientific," "learned," etc. but, when objectively analyzed, it is in reality utter garbage. But, and this is a big "but," it is the sort of garbage that cannot be refuted conclusively owing either to uncertainty in the science involved or uncertainty in the facts and assumptions on which it is based.
By this, I don't mean there are experts who have integrity and who will not allow their good names and reputations to be cynically used for such purposes.
But, for every expert of such integrity, it is (sadly) pretty easy to find others who can be bought.
Don't know what happened in this case but I instinctively can sympathize with the author here that this is what might easily have happened.
It is dressed up to be "scientific," "learned," etc. but, when objectively analyzed, it is in reality utter garbage. But, and this is a big "but," it is the sort of garbage that cannot be refuted conclusively owing either to uncertainty in the science involved or uncertainty in the facts and assumptions on which it is based.
By this, I don't mean there are experts who have integrity and who will not allow their good names and reputations to be cynically used for such purposes.
But, for every expert of such integrity, it is (sadly) pretty easy to find others who can be bought.
Don't know what happened in this case but I instinctively can sympathize with the author here that this is what might easily have happened.