Voir Dire – challenging an “expert” witness, prior to their testimony …
Like you, but for somewhat different reasons, I am dismayed by the crazy all over the world. That said, I have some skill sets that might be useful to the lawyers you are getting to know.
I mentioned to you before, about the voir dire examination of expert witnesses which are being used to support that status quo madness. They will be true believers in medical science, not knowing the underlying epistemological weaknesses of scientific materialism (all is matter, there is no spirit), which is their core “religion”.
With your help I’d like to make a zoom presentation of these matters, to a few lawyers who might be interested. As part of that demonstration, they would have present a “pretend” expert witness for the other-side, as it were.
I would then do an example voir dire examination of the pretend “expert”, so as to give a more living example of what could be done.
A main aspect of the situation is that scientific materialism is itself a “religion”, and to the extent we lay a “trap” for the witness, we examine their general understanding of science, and its relationship to the arts of medicine.
The power of the various underlying “beliefs” can then be made apparent. Rightly done the witness is soon saying, frequently: “I don’t know”, but “I do believe”. At which point we can ask them why we should trust their “beliefs”, as these are inextricable woven into the whole set of ideas behind the such entities as “the germ theory of disease”.
In fact, after laying some groundwork – so as to uncover the ways this particular witness leans – the questions can be spiral like, moving inward, tighter and tighter. A noose as it were, which can lead the witness to admit the true level of what they don’t know.
Some key words/riddles: empirical vs. theoretical; hard and soft sciences; the differences between what the witness has observed themselves, and what they have been taught to believe. [there is a bit of cleverness, that can be used here, which is to get the witness to use the word “belief” a lot.]
There is a kind epistemological exploration that can be useful. It is unlikely the witness is familiar with “the philosophy of science” riddles, and I have simplified that issue into four questions:
1) Do you know everything? 2) If you were to weigh in one hand a ball of what you do know, and in the other a ball of what you don’t know, which would be heavier? 3) It is possible, that if you took an item or two from the ball of what you don’t know, and added it to what you do know, that these additional facts might result in you changing what you believe you know? 4) Are you willing to learn?
This approach is to soften up the witness a bit, where they realize the uncertainty of what they claim to know.
This next thing is a bit radical, and even dramatic, but the point of this stage of the voir dire is to expose the witness to stuff they don’t know, but maybe should.
We ask the witness if they know of the difference between Newtonian physics, and that of Einstein. The point is to get them to recognize that a single mind can change the whole of something so fundamental as physics.
We then hand them Tom Cowan’s four books, “Human Heart – Cosmic Heart”; “Vaccines, Autoimmunity and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illnesses”; “Cancer and the New Biology of Water”; and “The Contagion Myth.”
When asked, the witness is unlikely to know this material, … maybe doesn’t even know of it. In any event, we suggest to the witness that Tom Cowan might be the Einstein of the next stage of the practice of the Arts-Medicine.
The point is not to prove this is true, but only to establish that the basic refusal of status quo “science” is to ignore the heretics, who usually end up the geniuses for the next advancement of that science.
It could be useful to offer the books into evidence, as evidence of cogent contrary views which the witness ought to become familiar.
for more details: https://thecollectiveimagination.com/shamans-law-firm/