The case you are referring to is Frye v. United States (1923). This ruling established the Frye standard, which stated that scientific evidence is admissible in court only if it is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
Scientific and technological discoveries are accepted if their evidence can be empirically validated through rigorous experimentation, observation, and analysis. Consistent replication of results by multiple researchers and the ability to make predictions based on the discovery also contribute to its acceptance within the scientific community.
Scientific statements are based on evidence, observation, and experimentation, following the scientific method to ensure accuracy and reliability. Non-scientific statements may lack empirical evidence, rely on personal beliefs or opinions, or be based on subjective experiences rather than objective data.
Wegener's ideas were not immediately accepted because he lacked a mechanism to explain how continents could move. Additionally, his theory challenged long-standing geological beliefs and there was not enough evidence at the time to support his hypothesis of continental drift. It was not until the development of the theory of plate tectonics in the 1960s that Wegener's ideas gained widespread acceptance.
There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of ghosts, so there is no scientific name for them. Ghosts are often considered to be a paranormal or supernatural phenomenon that is not recognized by the scientific community.
The scientific name for the Loch Ness monster is not real, as the creature is considered to be a myth or legend. There is no scientific evidence to support its existence.
Scientific evidence is allowed into the courtroom if it is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. It does not offer any guidance on reliability. the evidence is presented in the trial and the jury decides if it can be used.
Admissible as evidence
New scientific ideas are accepted or rejected based on compelling evidence.
Your mode of dress is not admissible in court. The evidence cries to be admissible, your honor!
New scientific ideas are accepted or rejected based on compelling evidence.
Hearsay
repeated .... nova net :))
Observational evidence
The evidence was not admissible in court due to it having no relevance to the proceedings.
AA meetings can be admissible in court. If they are court ordered or relevant to an issue or evidence, then it usually is admissible.
In a court of law the only evidence that can be admissible must be gotten legally.
Not at all. If a document is not admissible in evidence, than the question of admissibality not arise...