That is John's point, though, that you don't have to lie. You can use non-scientific abstraction and obfuscation to testify any way you want. Sort of the post-m

That is John's point, though, that you don't have to lie. You can use non-scientific abstraction and obfuscation to testify any way you want. Sort of the post-modern interpretation theory where anything is true, as long as your truth is told more charismatically. This seems pretty obviously true to me. It probably isn't even perjury. Even the law has some room for interpretation. That is the whole point of case history. Technology is so new and fluid that the legal system may never catch up to or well define the things a crafty obfuscator (expert witness or lawyer) can sling out. Skilled practitioners in the area of science or engineering will immediately identify the obfuscation and unreality of it, but that does not make it perjury, which does have a much more specific and well defined case law meaning.