Interesting that you should bring up some pseudoscience. It is well-known that jury trials often employ myriad methods of pseudoscience to admit artifacts into

Interesting that you should bring up some pseudoscience. It is well-known that jury trials often employ myriad methods of pseudoscience to admit artifacts into evidence, and to admit "expert witness" testimony into the record. Police, prosecutors and judges are incentivized and desperate to get a great record of convictions, and so they're positively motivated to do that by any means necessary. If you watch copaganda shows like NCIS or CSI, or the lovely Canadian Murdoch Mysteries, you will be introduced to a lot of smart scientists who use a lot of smart science to catch bad guys. Well, guess what, a lot of the "science" actually used in court, and believed by everyone on all sides of the case, and the spectators as well -- that "science" is fake, it's quackery, it's just an excuse to get convictions. Now there are whole categories of testimony and evidence which are always excluded and stricken from the record, because they are known to be invalid, such as "hearsay", and I think that if courts and the justice system compiled lists of pseudoscience and quackery, and then excluded that sort of crap out of hand, we would approach fairer trials and better justice for all.