60 ms·

'no-one' verifying is too steep. Many people test many results from science all the time. I've personally followed and tested many papers because their claimed

'no-one' verifying is too steep. Many people test many results from science all the time. I've personally followed and tested many papers because their claimed results were useful to me. Sometimes they aren't correct, or at least I am not able to verify them as such. More fundamental ideas are put to the test every time I design something, and they have held very strong in my experience. Equivocating religion with science by raising your standards so high they are impossible to meet in practice is disingenious, especially when one stands up to far more testing than the other. I agree that we need more critical thinking in this world, especially from the general public, but when you retreat to deciding nothing is verified because you have not seen or understood it directly and personally, you retreat in another direction which is just as useless and potentially harmful.

feralimal 6y ago
Thank you for your comment. Although you think you are arguing against me, I think you are supporting my point. When you design and it works - that is what I am calling applying the scientific method personally. When you test other's papers you should have a 100% confirmation rate, unless you are making an error in methodology. It seem to me that you did not find that. I'm not raising my standards high. When I have not personally verified something, I would say - that I haven't verified something. I just wouldn't say 'I know'. This a statement of reality - it is not a standards thing. There is no faith involved. But most people, it seems to me, would take it all on trust and step out to say 'they know'. I would say their standard are too low. That they are acting on faith - they are believers. Thanks again for your comment.