Who will do that independent verification? And why should they bother? What's the point of doing science? Why does it matter if it's done well? Those are al

Who will do that independent verification? And why should they bother? What's the point of doing science? Why does it matter if it's done well? Those are all human concerns, that you rely upon, to ensure the science is done well. > If multiple independent scientists perform the same experiment and achieve the same results, I’m trusting in the science — the methodology — not the scientists. You are absolutely 100% not trusting in the science. You are trusting that the scientists are ensuring they're not all making the same systemic error. They could all be ordering their instruments from the same faulty supplier. You rely on scientists to look for those unknown unknowns. Thank goodness a scientist didn't throw away that petri dish, when he realize that it had mold on it. Thank goodness a scientist was curious enough to realize he had made an enormous discovery. That's how we got penicillin. You rely on the curiosity of scientists to investigate not just new questions, but to revisit old answers. You rely on scientists to not laugh when they first hear of germ theory, but unfortunately the scientists we had in the real world did laugh about it, and did persecute and destroy proponents of it. You rely on human scientists to act ethically. > particularly the fact that it exists as a continual and open process. I believe YOU are the one who misunderstands that. It's implemented by humans. You want to pretend that's not true. > The scientific process is incompatible with your faith-based system of belief, which admits the enforcement of orthodoxy as a necessity, despite that doing so eliminates falsifiability, and is thus inherently anti-scientific. You fundamentally do not understand my beliefs well enough to summarize them, and that summary is completely inaccurate. If you were honest, you would ask me questions, or somehow try harder to understand my beliefs, when I tell you explicitly that you are misstating them. You have absolutely not done that. And that's incredibly disappointing. You have closed your mind to the possibility you are wrong about my beliefs. From what I've seen, you would make a terrible scientist. Why are there ethics boards to approve various experiments? I mean, do you even acknowledge that those IRBs exist? What role do they play? How do you know they're doing a good job? Do you admit they have a huge impact on what gets explored and discovered? Science you're so proud of science, can you tell me if there was an ethical problem with the Tuskegee Syphilis Study? Should the scientists have known better than to research in that way? Why? Why should they have known better? Where in the scientific method is encoded the ethics of scientific research? Where in the scientific method is encoded the Hippocratic Oath? They're orthogonal. And we rely on scientists to make the right decisions.