A more thorough explanation:

The Daubert standard is a legal standard used by a judge to determine whether an expert witness's scientific testimony is based on valid reasoning that can be applied to the facts of a case. This standard is used to ensure that only qualified evidence is presented to a jury during a trial.

The Daubert standard was established in the Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. in 1993. The factors that may be considered in determining whether the methodology is valid are:

1. Whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested
2. Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication
3. Its known or potential error rate
4. The existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation
5. Whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community

The Daubert standard is used in federal courts and some state courts, replacing the Frye standard in the federal court system. In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, the Supreme Court clarified Daubert, holding that an appellate court may still review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony. In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, the Supreme Court further clarified that the Daubert factors may apply to non-scientific testimony, such as the testimony of engineers and other experts who are not scientists.

For example, if a forensic scientist is called to testify about DNA evidence in a criminal trial, the Daubert standard would be used to determine whether their methodology is scientifically valid and reliable. The judge would consider factors such as whether the technique has been tested, whether it has been subject to peer review, and whether it has a known error rate.