In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals , the United States Supreme Court charged trial judges with acting as independent evaluators of scientific testimony, using the criteria of empirical testability of an assertion, peer review and publication of results, error inherent in a methodology, and degree of acceptance of that methodology by the scientific community. Judging whether information is good science depends on affirmative answers to four questions that encompass these criteria. The collection of the data on which a conclusion is based must conform to a scientific method. Next, the scientist reformulates the question as a hypothesis.
Hypotheses then make predictions and data are collected and analyzed to test the prediction.
A determination is then made about the likelihood that the result was due to chance and whether the result is scientifically important. Measuring a difference in data that is gathered does not necessarily mean that a hypothesis is correct or incorrect. The scientist must first determine whether a difference in results is due to chance. Once statistical significance has been established, the scientist must decide whether the results are of scientific significance. A phenomenon that has devastating effects on individuals or society may be important, even if it is unlikely.