It is IMHO a very bad adverse effect of a good thing after all: a world where people decide is probably a better one than one where only science and technology

It is IMHO a very bad adverse effect of a good thing after all: a world where people decide is probably a better one than one where only science and technology decides (I guess there are enough dystopian novels about this one). The judicial system represents society: I do not think the believe in pseudoscience is any worse or better . Still there is certainly problems relating to the fact that people without money cannot easily produce counterargument and let "real" scientists present counterhypotheses. Further there are incentives to sell products to law enforcement that produce simple truth (I would by a product from a critical scientist). Also I think it is human rights problem, if states do not have to fully compensate the damages produced by applying known faulty technology as many other actors would have to.