Or the judge may make the incorrect call depending on the relative presentation skills of opposing lawyers, the admission of spurious information or the omission of some relevant informationBut a court does listen to days - or even weeks - of competing scientific testimony and then determine which is truth and which is bullshit.
That's a court's job.
In a murder case, a judge might hear two totally different scientific theories about ballistics and bullet trajectories and then make the correct call.
Had the courts never convicted an innocent man or acquitted a guilty man, you might have an argument
But too bad for you this is not the case
A court does not determine science
Just like an opinion poll does not determine science
Scientific theory is determined by experimental observation.
Taught to you in your first high school science class
BTW:
Galileo spent the last years of his life under house arrest because a court (or church) found his theory that the earth revolved around the sun was blasphemous
Last edited: