In business, the arts and a lot of other professions, a so-called Golden Gut, that is the ability to make on-the-money intuitive/experiential judgments, is hot stuff. It was Michael Eisner's once-Golden Gut that restored Disney to its former glory. And, Microsoft's Chairman Bill Gates seemed to have lost his Golden Gut.
But, in Court Room 11 of the landmark Rhode Island (RI) lead paint trial, a Golden Gut or opinions derived from an intuitive grasp of the situation or experience, isn't welcome.
This morning, Day 17 of the trial, defense attorney representing Atlantic Richfield John Tarantino highlighted that plaintiff expert witness Patricia Nolan was using anecdote and experience to support her contentions about supposed harm from lead paint to housing costs and families.
The inference seemed to be that Mr. Tarantino found scientific studies, particularly scientific studies focused on RI per se, more credible. This questioning represented a continuation of his cross-examination of Dr. Nolan which began yesterday.
Of course, there are many pitfalls when dealing with anecdotes and experience. Layers and layers of interpretation can stand between what was or what is and what others perceived that as. But, there are also many pitfalls -- more are being exposed every day -- with scientific studies. Vioxx was the result of many scientific studies, right? And, that iconic marketing disaster New Coke was the result of much rigorous research, right?
Side Notes: Dr. Nolan is a key witness because she has been designated by the plaintiff to be its point person on Harms. Her statements are binding
There are three females, not two as I previously claimed, on the jury.
Comments