Let's consult a credible legal source. How about
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/...s/pdf/v03/03HarvJLTech223.pdf
Where it says in the 1st paragraph
quote:
In recent years there has been much discussion of the use of scientific evidence in the courtroom. Parties increasingly ask the courts to admit the testimony of research scientists...and other technically trained people. Paralleling this increased demand for the admission of scientific evidence is a growing awareness that current legal methods of reviewing and weighing such evidence are insufficient and should be reconsidered.
And goes on to quote
Frye v United States, as follows:
quote:
Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twighlight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognised, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well recognised scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.
IOW legally admissible scientific evidence is a subset of scientific knowledge, membership of which is determined by scientists for jurists.
Much of the rest of the paper is a beginner's course in the theory and techniques of DNA fingerprinting.
It is fitting, 'Attorney at Law', that you should be posting in a thread with this title, as you have shown some skill as a troll in the past. Continued repetition of the same themes is always boring, however, and you will have to raise your game considerably before I bite again.
™ Version 4.2