[ek_hornbeck]

Except that definition doesn’t include repeatable experiments to prove/dispove the theory.

Following that reasoning, we should never convict any criminals in the absence of reliable eye witnesses. Yet we do so all the time, and it's usually quite accurate. So it is when it comes to inferences of historical events.

[kosciusko51]

When a jury convicts on DNA evidence, is it solely because of the science, or that the jury believes the person who administered the DNA test did it accurately?

See post 24.