you grossly overstate the amount of lying in courts and don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter that there are some shades of truth that seep into the t

you grossly overstate the amount of lying in courts and don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter that there are some shades of truth that seep into the testimony. it's the counterparty's and the judge's job to keep that to a reasonable minimum (as is the threat of disbarment). the world is infinite shades of grey and we're evolutionarily conditioned to cope with that reality, even those 'ignorant' jurors. moreover, 'scientific consensus' is a sociopolitical, rather than a strictly rational and objective, process. at least try to understand the bone you're fishing to pick.