Again you are focusing on something separate from the point I'm discussing. It's is not a question of whether the LHC should have been built. It is also not about whether there were other reasons to build the LHC. I stated that in my initial post - and both of your follow ups have been about that. That is not the topic I (or she) is calling out.

The topic is that of science in general. Falsifiability of theories and arguments in good faith. Most specifically *one* of the numerous reasons provided for the LHC was X. Many people made that argument. That argument was false. People who made the argument either knew it was false or should have known. That is the issue being discussed. Not whether there were other valid reasons to build the LHC - or if those reasons were successful.

It's a bit of hyperbole but it's the equivalent of "lying under oath" to get a conviction. It doesn't matter if the defendant was guilty - and that they were ultimately convicted. It's not ok to "lie under oath" to try to put them behind bars. That is her argument. An expert witness either lied under oath (or was so wrong they shouldn't be considered an expert going forward). And the "courts" should acknowledge and address that. The fact that all of the other experts that all knew he was wrong said nothing is very notable. And we should really address it before that expert witness goes and testifies in another case. All if this is entirely independent of whether the defendant was guilty (which is the point you are raising).

Your argument is "the defendant was guilty, and here is all of this evidence they were guilty. Why are you picking this one expert and their evidence?". And I'm saying it's not about whether the defendant was guilty. That expert is being called out because either they were extremely wrong to the point they shouldn't be an expert, or they knowingly gave false testimony. And in both cases, the other experts in the room who as well knew it he was wrong all remained silent - and did so likely because it benefitted them.