>But if you said that, and [...] I'd be likely to believe you. That wasn't what I asked. I was very deliberate, I asked if it would be more likely to be true.

>But if you said that, and [...] I'd be likely to believe you. That wasn't what I asked. I was very deliberate, I asked if it would be more likely to be true. What's under discussion is not your standard of evidence, but whether non-contradiction by itself is sufficient to conclude that a claim is true. >Alas, a quick look at the periodic table raises a red flag That's not self-consistency anymore, that's cross-corroboration. Which, yeah, good on you if you do that, but it's not the process being proposed either by the OP or by fy20. >Physicists aren't routinely replicating every core result empirically for themselves. OK, but that wasn't what I said. A physicist can't test every result, sure, but he can test those that are most relevant to his work. I'm not going to get into the philosophy of empiricism because it's not relevant here. My point was that an expert reading a peer's paper is not the least bit comparable to a layman reading an LLM's summary of a field of study. They're just not similar situations. One has the context and the capability to detect bullshit, while the other does not.