Opposing Experts Preclude Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Violate the Right to a Fair Hearing

If opposing experts testify in good faith, then a scientific controversy exists. It cannot get resolved by rhetoric, and jury preference. It may only be resolved by additional scientific evidence from validated research. So only cases that are within the knowledge of the jury, or have expert support for only one side are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Any case allowing a debate between opposing experts violates the procedural due process right of the civil defendant to a fair hearing.

If a criminal case depends on expert testimony, and has an opposing expert, it is impossible to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof. If both experts are testifying in good faith, and the standard is to be have 80% plus certainty, the jury has no way to judge the testimonies, except by the likability of the expert. Such an effect violates defendant's due process right to a fair trial.