I very well know the difference but was interested in your "Yes, but..."

Dr. Taylor passed the Daubert test.   You say that is a seperate issue verses his submissions (which I will agree on), but yet Strom said there were "Daubert issues".  The Daubert issue was decided prior to his testimony.  If there was any issue, Dr. Taylor should not of been allowed to testify.  What are those issues?

If there was a problem with Dr. Taylor's testimony, why didn't Strom instruct the jury to disregard?  Why was the jury allowed to consider his testimony?   His testimony is good enough to make it to the deliberation room, but not good enough after the verdict is read?  That doesn't hold water.