As a counterpoint, here's a relevant part of an interview with the lawyer who won 2 billion dollars in damages from Monsanto addressing skeptics of the trial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw5H36B1tJE&t=2842s
No, I watched it, I'm a little surprised that one imprecise statement is compelling to you regarding a matter of scientific facts. I mean rather than taking it second hand from a lawyer that an unknown portion or a jury were 'scientists', you could actually take it from scientists and advisory and investigatory bodies comprised of scientists the cite specific sources.
I suppose it's my Bayesian priors coming to light - I'm so distrustful of one side of this debate in general that simply having 'science' in a website title gives me a reaction similar to a lot of people who see 'truth' or 'infowards' in a headline. I'd probably be much more receptive to the same studies if you were linking to google scholar or scihub.
You had just been linked scientific sources in the parent of the comment I replied to right? And your counterpoint was that a lawyer said 'scientists' were on the jury.
I disagree. If science means anything it means the same to a trained professional as a literate layperson.
The idea that twelve ordinarily competent people sequestered and doing nothing but studying the science for months would be more likely to come to the wrong conclusion than people whose careers depend on a specific outcome is not science. If science is an impenetrable language available only to a designated elite, then it's just religion with weirder cosmology.
