Cross examination of an expert is pretty important. Judges and juries are not supposed to allow fringe opinions as experts and even the best experts may hold no

Cross examination of an expert is pretty important. Judges and juries are not supposed to allow fringe opinions as experts and even the best experts may hold non-consensus positions on some matters. The fix for that system would be a "Mechanical Turk" of an expert and taking the majority vote or, if there's no consensus, dropping the matter. The important part here would be complete blinding of each expert. Wait, that sounds like an expert jury. :)