My father was called for jury duty a few years ago. The case depended on some physics, something about the angles and momentum in a car crash. My father was disqualified, because he's a physics teacher and may have been tempted to interpret the physics expert's testimony instead of blindly accepting it.
Yup. I don't think the problem is the jury, or even the experts. There's a fundamental problem with how the courts use expert testimony to ensure fair justice. I believe the idea is that to ensure fairness, verdicts should not be determined by variances in expertise amongst the jury. I recall being specifically instructed that I was NOT to question the expert testimony based on any prior expertise I might have. It so…
I can imagine that this is required because the vast majority of people have "opinions" on the experts' field. So many people operate on gut feelings and reject science and fact. So they prefer to blanket ban arguing about the experts statement.