[Apologies: I am taking out my general contempt for humanity on your comments, which are for the most part, more or less fine.

> Yes, the doctor over evaluated his intelligence in understanding statistics because he’s an expert as a doctor

Does a piece of paper declaring that someone "is an expert" [1] cause them to become able to reliably (say, > 90% correct) understand any question that is posed to them?

Possibly relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

> ...It would be wrong to dismiss him because he’s not an expert in statistics

Agree, though it may be prudent to be skeptical of any pronouncements that involve statistics, which is what happened in this story.

> However, there is another expert there, the defense lawyer, who’s job is to scrutinize everything and consider how jurors take in information. That defense lawyer should be calling an expert in statistics.

They should probably also be nicer to their friends and family, eat better, exercise, not drink/smoke, inform themselves accurately before voting or even supporting the political system one grew up under, etc - just as we all should, including me. Yet, it seems people tend not to do all that they "should" - rather, most people seem to have extremely strong aversions to such things, despite regularly claiming with complete sincerity otherwise.

[1] which technically, no doctor actually receives, calling into question the very claim of them being "an expert", whatever that means