I’ve always been curious as to what in the background of a Judge on the bench, or Judges of a court qualifies them to determine scientific findings, and rule on such issues.
Seems to be who argues the best, perhaps more plausible argument, or whatever the Judge’s personal perspectives are rather than quality science that determines the judges edict.
IOW how can these “Judges” be all, and know all? Not possible, and how does one “rule” on a scientific finding with only those of like social, or political mentality performing positive peer review, and those of opposing social values, thus political perspective the negative review. A crap shoot? Go for the gut instinct?
Does this boil down to if in doubt...? WHAT?
How does a judge have confidence to rule on such issues as Science is the study of ‘?’
To put it in military terms from 1965, (I don’t know the current jargon) it amounts to a combination of a Circle —— and a Cluster ——. It has absolutely nothing to do with science, a gathering of Shamans would be far more scientific. My very limited exposure to judges leads me to believe that most are incapable of remembering that they are not Gods.
Some of them remind me of his honor “Pigmeat”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvMBxlu62c0&feature=related