regardless of whether the opposing party attempts to conclusively prove the expert testimony is wrong. Witnesses offered as experts in an area or subject will invariably have experience in that field. If courts merely accept “experience” as a substitute for proof that an expert’s opinions are reliable and then only examine the testimony for analytical gaps in the expert’s logic and opinions, an expert can effectively insulate his or her conclusions from meaningful review by filling gaps in the testimony with almost any type of data or subjective opinions. See Gammill, 972 S.W.2d at 722. We have recognized, and do recognize, that some subjects do not lend themselves to scientific testing and scientific methodology. Id. at 724; see Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 39 (Tex.2007) (<HOLDING>). But given the facts in this case, the
recognizing same factors holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care recognizing that the robinson factors do not readily lend themselves to a review of expert testimony in automobile accident cases holding that jurors do not need expert testimony on matters of common knowledge holding expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases