Reminder that science is also based on faith. Due to the vastness

>>9157841
Yes but you always have the option of reading his/her paper and evaluating their evidence which is what other scientists do.

The difference between science and faith is the accessibility of evidence.

File: a699ff387a493bbb3cfc288d5085cb06.jpg (158KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1920x1080px

>it's impossible for any one person to know everything.

It [math]\textit{is}[/math] possible to know everything, and actually quite easy as well. All you need to do is to [math]\textit{decide}[/math] that you know everything. After all, you're always the one who determines what the truth is in the end.

>>9157851
>Yes but you always have the option of reading his/her paper and evaluating their evidence which is what other scientists do.
It's impossible for you to be able to evaluate every paper critically because you will eventually lack the foundation of knowledge to do so, as you stray further and further from your speciality. There's only so much knowledge you can acquire before the tank is filled up due to biological constraints. You can't expect a physicist to read a zoology paper and be able to understand it at a critical level. Eventually you have to accept knowledge based on faith.

I guess you could call it faith but there are more than one biologist out there so you can always go to another if you don't like the one. So it's more of an educated opinion. But scientists are (supposed to be) rigorous about these sorts or things. I'm sure the physicist would have done some research to see if what the biologist said aligns with well founded theories etc.
The thing about science is that it has to be testable otherwise it's unfalsifiable (we just can't know it it's true). So it doesn't matter how crooked or backwards a scientist is, you can always test it again.

>>9157855
That's just delusion.

>>9157862
>But scientists are (supposed to be) rigorous about these sorts or things
That's were your faith is based, in that cultural/institutional assumption that every scientist is doing their job rigorously.

>>9157865
But another scientist can come along say "let's test that" and all that lack of rigor goes out the window. This is why actually science works.

>>9157841
In practice yes but not in principle, which is why it is different from religions.

File: Image1.png (347KB, 1363x1125px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1363x1125px

>>9157841
>Reminder that science is also based on faith. Due to the vastness of collective human knowledge, our short lifespans, our weak brains, and our needs for survival, it's impossible for any one person to know everything. Even the smartest person alive will eventually need to defer to an expert. When you defer to an expert, you're making a leap of a faith. The faith being your belief that the person knows what he's talking about. In short, when a physicist wants to know about biology, he defers to a biologist on the basis of faith.


No connection with science

>>9157866
Scientists can also collude to fake data and experiments. It's also impossible for scientists to test every claim or paper to an equally rigoruous standard, especially when it comes to peripheral claims or niche fields. Bullshit can always seep, just look at what stephen j gould and his cronies did.

>>9157867
I'm not trying to raise a equivalence with religion here.

>>9157874
Yes that's possible because of the collaborative nature of science but if you can get away with that that means people aren't interested in your findings so they aren't independently testing them. Why would you go to those lengths and risk your reputation for something no one cares about?