The law courts are therefore the last place that the validity of scientific theory should be tested
Indeed, which is exactly why the court does not allow scientific evidence untested by the scientific community to be admitted. It is exactly because neither the court, nor the jury, has the ability to distinguish between good science and bad that this sort of measure is necessary.
Standards are what allows software to interoperate, even if you don't write them down. Without them, there'd be no internet (TCP, HTTP, HTML). The enemy is entrenched software (if you want to call that an enemy). No matter how many standards exist, or potential revisions to standards exist, people don't want to upgade their software, and whatever is most widely supported becomes THE standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, which is exactly why the court does not allow scientific evidence untested by the scientific community to be admitted. It is exactly because neither the court, nor the jury, has the ability to distinguish between good science and bad that this sort of measure is necessary.
Standards are what allows software to interoperate, even if you don't write them down. Without them, there'd be no internet (TCP, HTTP, HTML). The enemy is entrenched software (if you want to call that an enemy). No matter how many standards exist, or potential revisions to standards exist, people don't want to upgade their software, and whatever is most widely supported becomes THE standard.