Non-forensic evidence - a logical fallacy?

In a court of law legal evidence is presented. Some of this may be testimony, some documentary, and some physical. Of the physical evidence part may be forensic, that is obtained by the application of science. The other part of the physical evidence, and the testimony and documentary evidence, is non-forensic.

Science and scientific evidence provide society's basis for knowing the world. Isn't the use of testimony, and documentary evidence, and all non-forensic evidence in a court of law a double-standard? After all, it involves non-science. In the interests of justice, shouldn't scientists seek to ban the use of non-forensic evidence and ban trials from proceeding unless forensic evidence is available that meets some defined level of rigor?

If not, where is the logical fallacy?

To be a double-standard, it would have to be applied unfairly to different groups in the same circumstance. For example, if we allowed eye-witness testimony in person 1's legal proceeding, and didn't allow it in person 2's legal proceeding, that would be a reasonable claim for a double-standard. However, what you are describing is how one obtains evidence for a scientific claim about the world vs a legal proceeding... two very different domains.

With legal proceedings, we don't have the luxury of saying "I don't know, let's withhold judgment until evidence is made available that warrants the judgement." We HAVE to make a judgement based on the best evidence we have. Therefore, courts will take anything. In the United States, courts don't claim that people are innocent; they claim that they are not guilty, or more specifically, there is reasonable doubt.