My original response was to
your seemingly blanket statement that opinions aren't allowed in courts.
Again, I don't know whether or not anyone here would, or could, qualify as an expert before a court. I haven't given it any thought--and my thoughts probably still couldn't answer the question.
But again to be technical--and not meant to open a debate: Layperson opinions can be allowed in layperson matters--in matters that don't require expert analysis. (At least in the U.S. I haven't checked wrt England yet.)
"... Witnesses must answer questions in the form of statements of what they saw, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled. Usually they're not permitted to express their opinions or draw conclusions. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), a court will permit a person who isn't testifying as an expert to testify in the form of an opinion if it's both rationally based on their perception and helps to explain the witness's testimony. This is referred to as the "lay opinion" rule. ..."
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-lay-opinion-rule.html
Nor was a debate my intent. My intent was, again, a technical one; in response to
your assertion regarding your personal definition a scientist. You stated your opinion regarding your definition; I merely responded with mine; and didn't pass judgment against yours, nor did I say, in effect, you were wrong. Again, I only did as you did, and gave my opinion.
If you re-read my prior post, you see that I offered no new topics; my complete post 'was' my opinions, in response to
your opinions. So was this one,
until now:
I find it interesting, that on the internet, people say things, and sometimes consider a response to what they said as 'starting a debate.'
It's as almost as they were telling their child,
"Stop talking back to me!!"
If 'talking back' doesn't translate well to your (or any other reader's) location, this might help with the interpretation:
https://www.verywellfamily.com/how-to-handle-a-child-who-is-talking-back-620102