How reliable is an Expert Witness?

[nismaratwork]

So - to rally this around to the topic at hand:

1. Do Expert Witnesses really and truly try to represent the facts as they see them, without compromise?

I would submit to you that this is how they sell themselves to their clients who hire them (the courts don't hire them - one side or the other does).

2. Do Expert Witnesses fudge the facts in order to remain within the good graces of the court, or at least report only those conclusions with which the judge is more likely to agree?

I would submit to you that in my experience, that's precisely what they do, as their ongoing reputation in the courts directly affects their future to continue to perform successfully in the courts (no one hires expert witnesses whose testimony is repeatedly discounted by a judge or judges).

3. Is the system corrupted?

I would submit to you that while the people within the system are themselves (mostly) not corrupt, the system itself is indeed falling short of the measure of justice. However, I would also remind you that the system established itself, like all human endeavors, upon a need, i.e. "you need my services and here's why, now here's what I can do for you, here's what I've done for you, and here's you bill - please pay."

More comments, please.

1.) Sometimes, it depends on who they are, and the money involved.

2.) They are inevitably coached by lawyers, for the benefit of the judge and/or jury. After all, if one here had to testify about an engineering or physics issue, we would be incomprehensible to the jury without massaging the terminology and drawing approximations. It is a short leap from that to fudging for the client.

3.) Yes, for the reasons that you stated. It is often said, and truly I think, that it isn't a great system, it's just better than most available.

Palladin: I can understand your position, and while jury duty can be disheartening, it can also be a worthwhile civic duty. I hope that this experience doesn't ruin you for the future... you, and other PF regulars are the types of people who SHOULD be on juries!

 

[nismaratwork]

... the difference between a UFO expert, and an ET expert. One may have nothing to do with the other, assuming that the latter even exists.

I am all but positive that the designation "UFO" has its origins as a military term. I will try to dig up a reference. I know Ruppelt [USAF, Project Bluebook] states this in his book. He started using the expression "flying saucer" to distinguish between generic UFOs, and the reports of saucer-like objects.

I think you're right... I believe it was originally a RADAR designation meant to be exactly what it sounded like: an object in flight which was not identified. The original "flying saucer" scares where just that... flying saucers and called such by newspapers. I'll see if I can find a reference too, but as it stands I agree with you.

 

[loseyourname]

Your point is completely out of context, hence false.

Fair if that's true, but I followed the OP's link and it said this:

We have over 400 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology, and the cover-up that keeps this information secret.

Those sound to me like eyewitnesses, not expert witnesses. Their status as experts would simply make them more credible as eyewitnesses, but they would still be called to the stand as eyewitnesses.

Mind you I'm not saying this to debunk their claims or anything. In general, eyewitness testimony is a more persuasive form of evidence than expert testimony is. Eyewitness testimony by a subject-matter expert is even more persuasive.

 

[stevenb]

... Their status as experts would simply make them more credible as eyewitnesses, ...

To me, this status makes them less credible. Their status as "experts" goes up if they can lend credulity and legitimacy to the field. ... But, maybe that's just the cynic in me talking.

 

[nismaratwork]

Fair if that's true, but I followed the OP's link and it said this:



Those sound to me like eyewitnesses, not expert witnesses. Their status as experts would simply make them more credible as eyewitnesses, but they would still be called to the stand as eyewitnesses.

Mind you I'm not saying this to debunk their claims or anything. In general, eyewitness testimony is a more persuasive form of evidence than expert testimony is. Eyewitness testimony by a subject-matter expert is even more persuasive.

They can be both, or neither. If you have a RADAR operator on an AEGIS system who detects a UFO (in the literal sense), and testifies without speculation that it behaved in a certain manner then they are a witness to the event or anomaly, but also an expert in reading the RADAR system. Now, a pilot who sees lights outside their canopy is merely an eyewitness.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Those sound to me like eyewitnesses, not expert witnesses. Their status as experts would simply make them more credible as eyewitnesses, but they would still be called to the stand as eyewitnesses.

Mind you I'm not saying this to debunk their claims or anything. In general, eyewitness testimony is a more persuasive form of evidence than expert testimony is. Eyewitness testimony by a subject-matter expert is even more persuasive.

Ah, well, I think you would have to take each case on its own merits. If, for example, the witness was a trained RADAR operator acting in his official capacity, he may qualify as an expert within his domain. OTOH, if he saw a UFO fly over his house, his testimony wouldn't count any more than anyone else's. To me, the distinction is that many of these witnesses were experts within their domain when the observation occurred. This also assumes that the reports are official and not just verbal anecdotes.

In the case of the Iran '76 event
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf

all witnesses were acting in an official capacity, with their stories supported by official documentation. It was their job to identify the UFO. Conversely, if a military jail guard says that he saw ET in a cell, his story is just another story.

An interesting aside wrt Iran: If it was a highly classified weapon of some sort, why was the report declassified in 1982? Declassification only happens when the event has been deemed to have no defense significance.

 

[russ_watters]

Now, a pilot who sees lights outside their canopy is merely an eyewitness.

Agreed and that applies to a large number of supposedly credible sightings - so many it is basically the archetype of an entire class of UFOs and witnesses. Case in point, the Mexican air force sighting a few years ago.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Agreed and that applies to a large number of supposedly credible sightings - so many it is basically the archetype of an entire class of UFOs and witnesses. Case in point, the Mexican air force sighting a few years ago.

Ironcially: A pilot reports a strange light, so the report is dismissed as nonsense because a strange light isn't suggestive of ET. So what? That doesn't make the report uninteresting. And the pilot never said it was ET, the skeptics did; or they treat it as an ET report, which is or course, nonsense, so they dismiss it. This is the sort of circular logic that drives me nuts!

What about when the light chases the plane? Ah, that would suggest it was ET, and ET isn't here, so the report is uninteresting.

 

[nismaratwork]

Ironcially: A pilot reports a strange light, so the report is dismissed as nonsense because a strange light isn't suggestive of ET. So what? That doesn't make the report uninteresting. And the pilot never said it was ET, the skeptics did; or they treat it as an ET report, which is or course, nonsense, so they dismiss it. This is the sort of circular logic that drives me nuts!

What about when the light chases the plane? Ah, that would suggest it was ET, and ET isn't here, so the report is uninteresting.

I didn't get the sense that Russ was trying to dismiss the notion that such sightings can be interesting, just not as evidence of ETs. It is only annoying when people confuse the notion of the expert witness with a simple appeal to authority, a mistake made by more people on all sides of such debates, than not.

 

[pallidin]

Another aspect to the above conversation might be the notion of a "trained observer"
Some pilots, especially military, are trained to recognize certain visual and radar characteristics of various known aircraft.
Should their report of an incident indicate that the observation falls outside commonality, I would think that this qualifies their witness testimony to be somewhat elevated in consideration.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I didn't get the sense that Russ was trying to dismiss the notion that such sightings can be interesting, just not as evidence of ETs. It is only annoying when people confuse the notion of the expert witness with a simple appeal to authority, a mistake made by more people on all sides of such debates, than not.

I was speaking in generic terms. It wasn't meant for Russ, it was an addendum to his statement.

The moment something gets labeled "UFO", most serious people stop paying attention. That, imo, is terribly unfortunate. But even worse, otherwise highly credible people turn crackpot in a moment because the subject has been completely distorted by the media and true believers.

For example: Every time Neil deGrasse Tyson says "I need more than lights in the sky", I want to slap him silly. Obviously he has no idea what he is talking about.

edit: This really annoys me because I otherwise admire and enjoy Dr. Tyson's work in public education.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Agreed and that applies to a large number of supposedly credible sightings - so many it is basically the archetype of an entire class of UFOs and witnesses. Case in point, the Mexican air force sighting a few years ago.

Of course you ignore the other case in point located right above your post.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Again, in terms of military encounters, one job of the USAF [and non-US air forces, of course] is to identify UFOs. That makes them experts.

 

[nismaratwork]

I was speaking in generic terms. It wasn't meant for Russ, it was an addendum to his statement.

The moment something gets labeled "UFO", most serious people stop paying attention. That, imo, is terribly unfortunate. But even worse, otherwise highly credible people turn crackpot in a moment because the subject has been completely distorted by the media and true believers.

For example: Every time Neil deGrasse Tyson says "I need more than lights in the sky", I want to slap him silly. Obviously he has no idea what he is talking about.

edit: This really annoys me because I otherwise admire and enjoy Dr. Tyson's work in public education.

Agreed, but let's be frank: Dr. Tyson and others have adapted to the onslaught of cranks by raising cognitive barriers. It's unfortunate, but he has to get through the day, and most people don't deal well with conflicting ideas held simultaneously, even if for the purposes of genuine skeptical examination.

 

[nismaratwork]

Again, in terms of military encounters, one job of the USAF [and non-US air forces, of course] is to identify UFOs. That makes them experts.

There are photo and radar analysts who could be parts of an expert... as you say, not the personnel, but the Force as a whole. The problem is that if the UFO is saaaaay, a spy-plane from a foreign country, we may not want to admit it. If the UFO is the B-2 Spirit (and some were) then it's classified like crazy! This means that while the expertise exists in the various air forces of the world, the motivation to share a given truth is questionable. Something unknown may be preferable to leave as a mystery, rather than offering definitive proof that it isn't an ET craft, for the reasons mentioned above. It's a tough situation.

 

[russ_watters]

Ironcially: A pilot reports a strange light, so the report is dismissed as nonsense because a strange light isn't suggestive of ET. So what? That doesn't make the report uninteresting. And the pilot never said it was ET, the skeptics did; or they treat it as an ET report, which is or course, nonsense, so they dismiss it. This is the sort of circular logic that drives me nuts!

What about when the light chases the plane? Ah, that would suggest it was ET, and ET isn't here, so the report is uninteresting.

I saw none of that logic in the incident in question. My recolection of the incident was that the incident was immediately characterized by an official in the Mexican Air Force as conclusive proof of ET*. This is why I see it as disingenuous to continuously harp on the fact that "UFO" and "ETUFO" are two different things. Everyone knows this, but since only "ETUFO" piques most people's interest, those are the cases that make the news. In this case (and in most, in my estimation), the report wasn't dismissed, but rather it was picked-up and reported by the media precisely because of the ET implications.

*Here's a news story with quotes from the pilots that the objects seemed to know they were being followed, that they (the pilots) were afraid and that "we are not alone": http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20040511-1438-mexico-military-ufos.html

Here's a compliation of a couple that say, essentially, the Mexican DOD gave the video to a Mexican UFOologist who then made the claim that this was alien spacecraft : http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20040511-1438-mexico-military-ufos.html

So it is incorrect for you to say the incident was first characterized as ET by skeptics.

 

[stevenb]

The moment something gets labeled "UFO", most serious people stop paying attention. That, imo, is terribly unfortunate.

I think this is a very interesting comment. You know, if we take this out of the context of a UFO discussion, which tends to bias people heavily one way of the other, this is very relevant to scientists. Wouldn't you say that many Nobel Laureates, and even many more "prize-less" innovators, were people that paid attention to something that was unidentified?

 

[russ_watters]

Of course you ignore the other case in point located right above your post.

I don't think your post was there while I was typing mine. In either case, the Iranian UFO sighting is not an example of the same issue. The most compelling part about the Iranian incident is the radar contact, not the visual sighting.

Again, in terms of military encounters, one job of the USAF [and non-US air forces, of course] is to identify UFOs. That makes them experts.

That makes (or made) some of them experts. Analysis of raw data is likely a dying skill in the military these days due to the fact that computers are taking over that role.

The point of the example was an illustration that though pilots are often assumed to be "expert witnesses" at least in a colloquial sense, they are mostly just eyewitnesses and while the factual quality of their reports is often good (they are better than average for eyewitnesses), the quality of the conclusions they draw is highly variable.

The problem with the Mexican UFO incident is the very common lack of ability to judge distance for a point source of light without external reference. Pilots all know about this problem, but pilots are human and our brains play tricks on us. So while we giggle when laypeople mistake Venus for a UFO ( http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/03/15/erie-ufo-sounds-familiar-to-me/ ), we should still not be surprised when pilots make similar mistakes.

 

[CEL]

The standards for scientific evidence are much higher than those for legal evidence. And you are right; for anything that cannot be reproduced on demand, it is very difficult to obtain good evidence for that phenomenon, even if it's genuine. Not to say that ET is here, but all such claims [not producible on demand] are almost impossible to verify or even investigate.

For one the best examples of how ridiculous this gets, consider the sliding rock phenomenon. For about a century, we have known that rocks on a dry lake bed move, but nobody is sure why they move, and no one has ever caught them moving. So even if we know precisely where a phenomenon might be observed, not knowning when to look can be sufficient to make verification very difficult.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60676

For a good theory, explaining the phenomenon, see:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4021

 

[mugaliens]

3.) Yes, for the reasons that you stated. It is often said, and truly I think, that it isn't a great system, it's just better than most available.

I do agree its a decent system. I'm inclined to lean more towards state-sponsored experts who are not hired by either side in a case, but who are trained to be objective and discerning.

Naturally, this approach wouldn't work for cases where it's the state against an individual!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For a good theory, explaining the phenomenon, see:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4021

Yes, there are a number of theories. In fact I started a thread about this five years ago.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60676

The point is that no one has EVER seen them moving, but we've known about them for a century. Transient and seemingly random phenomena can be all but impossible catch in the act.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, there are a number of theories. In fact I started a thread about this five years ago.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60676

The point is that no one has EVER seen them moving, but we've known about them for a century. Transient and seemingly random phenomena can be all but impossible catch in the act.

So true; ball lightning is another great example of a well accepted phenomenon/na which is difficult to replicate or capture.