I defer to no one in my confidence in federal judges; but I am at
a loss to know what is meant when it is said that the scientific
status of a theory depends on its -falsifiability,- and I suspect
some of them will be, too.
  I do not doubt that Rule 702 confides to the judge some
gatekeeping responsibility in deciding questions of the
admissibility of proffered expert testimony.  But I do not think it
imposes on them either the obligation or the authority to become
amateur scientists in order to perform that role.  I think the
Court would be far better advised in this case to decide only the
questions presented, and to leave the further development of this
important area of the law to future cases.
---
---------------