> Also weren't most of the questions that the TQP lawyer asked ad hominem?
Ad hominem is when you attack a logical argument based on the characteristics of the person making it. It's a logical fallacy because the logical argument is something that can be evaluated itself using logical reasoning.
But an expert witness does not present a logical argument that the jury can evaluate on its own merits. An expert witness presents an opinion and explains the evidence on which he relied to form that opinion. Facts that credit or discredit the witness help the jury determine whether to believe the opinion.
Incidentally, this is why the Federal Rules of Evidence are a better basis for internet arguments than the logical fallacies. These are rarely a matter of reasoning, but rather a matter of assessing the credibility of opinions. When you argue with someone about global warming, you're not presenting logical arguments that can be evaluated standing alone. You're arguing over which experts have more credible opinions and which sets of evidence you believe.