Let's not make this into a bigger deal than it is. My comment was limited
to what struck me as a peculiarity in the combination of these two items:
1. Your earlier comment that we should not expect the law professor to get
all scientific details straight. (In some measure I am sympathetic to your
line of thought here.)
2. The fact that the law professor has nonetheless set himself up as one
who is sufficiently informed regarding the empirical data and sufficiently
equipped for the performance of scientific theory evaluation that he can
rightly declare the professional judgment of the vast majority of the
scientific community to be entirely misguided. (On that score you and I
might have substantial disagreement.)
Howard Van Till