I don’t disagree with what you’re saying but the point I’m trying to convey is that similarly to how a judge can be wrong on a scientific matter, the scientific consensus can also be wrong. The consensus often ignores new discoveries that challenge the consensus often for many years if not decades. The peer review process is also far to be impartial. I guess maybe it doesn’t have so much to do with the process itself but how corrupt it has become. To this regards, a decision of a judge is similar. In theory, it’s supposed to be impartial but it practice it can be corrupted for many reasons. I see your point about a judge not being a scientist hence not being able to appreciate a scientific matter but I would disagree that a judge cannot come to an informed decision on a scientific matter. Questioning is a powerful tool for one mind to form an opinion on any matter. The goal is not to become an expert but to gauge the sincerity and trustworthiness of the experts relaying the scientific knowledge.
Discussion
Science can always be wrong. But the nature of science is that it's self-correcting, and it builds on itself. And when it's wrong, it's very rarely completely wrong. It's usually a particular conclusion that was based on relatively weak evidence is superceded when higher-quality evidence is developed that supports a different conclusion. And it's literally never deemed wrong by the judicial opinion of a single layperson. If the scientific consensus related to fluoride is going to be overturned, it's going to be because some revolutionary, indisputable new evidence is developed by relevant subject-matter experts, and their published research is so compelling, and confirmed through the peer-review process that it forces the entire scientific establishment to rethink the entire multi-decade body of knowledge the current consensus is based on. This is why I say that it's misleading and ultimately irrelevant what some judge says. It has no relevance and no impact on the established science.
The judge didn’t overturn the scientific consensus on fluoride. He made it a legally binding fact for the society. Whether or not the judge correctly understood the scientific consensus is another question.
FYI, even if we have a different perspective on the matter, I appreciate the friendly discussion, and I respect your position. I've had some bad experiences trying to engage on these types of topics, but this has been a good chat. I think it's important that people of differing views come together for civil discussion that doesn't involve hostility and personal attacks. We all have something to offer, but if your first instinct is to attack the other person for expressing a view you don't share, you're going to miss out of their perspective, and knowledge. Then, nobody wins. I look forward to talking with you more in the future.
Likewise, I’m always up for having my views challenged and challenge other people’s views as long as it remains respectful.