To combat "junk science," what standard do most judges still use?

In the context of combating "junk science," the Frye standard is widely recognized as a benchmark in legal proceedings. This standard primarily requires that scientific evidence must be "generally accepted" by the relevant scientific community before it can be admissible in court. It serves as a filter to ensure that only those scientific methodologies that have gained a proficiency of acceptance among professionals in the field are allowed to support legal arguments.

The emphasis on general acceptance addresses concerns regarding the validity and stability of scientific testimony as it relates directly to the case at hand. This standard avoids allowing untested or fringe scientific theories to influence judicial outcomes, promoting a reliance on established scientific methods that are favorably regarded within the scientific community.

The other standards, while relevant in their contexts, either introduce more complex criteria regarding empirical evidence and reliability or focus on tactical considerations in court, which do not fundamentally prioritize the general acceptance that Frye offers. Therefore, the Frye standard is particularly noted for its aim to mitigate the risks posed by unreliable scientific evidence in legal settings.