4 ms·

I did not say there was a need to personally verify the results of every experiment. Merely pointing out that the scientific process is not based on trust, but

I did not say there was a need to personally verify the results of every experiment. Merely pointing out that the scientific process is not based on trust, but evidence. I would not believe a claim made by a single experimenter/group unless independent evidence corroborates it. Neither should you. Look up the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment, or pentaquarks.

goto11 5y ago
Yeah but how do you then know the "independent scientists" actually reproduced the results and didn't just make it up? In the end it comes down to trust in the process and the community.
- bally0241 5y ago
  You don't. Case in point the drift in measured values of the fundamental charge of the electron over time starting with Millikan. However, given enough independent evidence you can conclude whether or not the results of a measurement are more likely than not.
emerongi 5y ago
You are still putting trust into the fact that the groups/experimenters are actually independent. Unless you have personally verified every experiment, you are still putting trust into the fact that others have done the work as they claim. What you are doing is being _pragmatic_ about your trust. You have a level of trust that is acceptable. The reality is that we all are trusting "science" to one degree or another. I absolutely agree that all experiments should be repeatable and independently verifiable, but in the real world science (in my opinion) very much depends on trust. We don't all have time to verify every experiment.
- bally0241 5y ago
  Separate experimenters making claims to the same results is in itself a form of evidence. Believing otherwise requires either the existence a common error or a conspiracy.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > Believing otherwise requires either the existence a common error or a conspiracy. Both of which are common.

4 ms·

I did not say there was a need to personally verify the results of every experiment. Merely pointing out that the scientific process is not based on trust, but

by bally0241 5y ago

goto11 5y ago
Yeah but how do you then know the "independent scientists" actually reproduced the results and didn't just make it up? In the end it comes down to trust in the process and the community.
- bally0241 5y ago
  You don't. Case in point the drift in measured values of the fundamental charge of the electron over time starting with Millikan. However, given enough independent evidence you can conclude whether or not the results of a measurement are more likely than not.
emerongi 5y ago
You are still putting trust into the fact that the groups/experimenters are actually independent. Unless you have personally verified every experiment, you are still putting trust into the fact that others have done the work as they claim. What you are doing is being _pragmatic_ about your trust. You have a level of trust that is acceptable. The reality is that we all are trusting "science" to one degree or another. I absolutely agree that all experiments should be repeatable and independently verifiable, but in the real world science (in my opinion) very much depends on trust. We don't all have time to verify every experiment.
- bally0241 5y ago
  Separate experimenters making claims to the same results is in itself a form of evidence. Believing otherwise requires either the existence a common error or a conspiracy.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > Believing otherwise requires either the existence a common error or a conspiracy. Both of which are common.