Indeed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

Indeed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard I've been beginning to wonder for a few years now if there's a fatal flaw in the scientific method in that, at some point, giving proper validation to a piece of information or claimed knowledge becomes so resource intensive that it becomes cost prohibitive in time, energy, capital, etc. to validate or invalidate. In fact, I've been wondering if science itself can get to a point where the body of human knowledge becomes so large that even the typical process of conducting a literature review becomes so costly in some form, you're better off just to do the experiment, study, or whatever. There may be some benefit in this allowing independent consensus of knowledge but you ultimately need some sort if more refined knowledge management system. The society we live in of self-interest perpetuating disinformation and misinformation for personal interest sort of brings this issue on extreme. If you've ever seen absurd claims and wanted to earnestly validate or show how a claim is off, you've experienced this. You can not only make absurd claims now, you can often provide massive bodies of supposed evidence that are difficult if not impossible to tell what is accurate or inaccurate. It's not only enough to provide extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, you need to provide focused evidence or evidence that can be reasonably independently validated.