• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How many percentage test and verify all the experiments of science?

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
How many percentage of persons test and verify all the experiments of science?
What to speak of repeating them not even all the experiments in their specific field of interest they would do it or consider doing them.
I don't think many people do it, and all goes on faith in scientific method and then science and many a time blind-faith in scientific method and or science. While sceintific method having relevance pertinence to all aspects of life is also doubtful and not certain.
Any guess
Regards

_____________
The thread was conceptualized from post#223 paarsurrey
 
Last edited:

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
How many percentage of persons test and verify all the experiments of science?
What to speak of repeating them not even all the experiments in their specific field of interest they would do it or consider doing them.
I don't think many people do it, and all goes on faith in science and many a time blind-faith in science.
Any guess
Regards

_____________
The thread was conceptualized from post#223 paarsurrey

-- Thread posted using a device created by science using the Internet, which was also created by science... and then argues against the credibility of science.

10/10 irony meter malfunction.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
How many percentage of persons test and verify all the experiments of science?
What to speak of repeating them not even all the experiments in their specific field of interest they would do it or consider doing them.
I don't think many people do it, and all goes on faith in science and many a time blind-faith in science.
Any guess
Regards

There's a guy named Ron.
He works on Wednesdays and Fridays, from 8-5.
He's the guy who tests all the experiments of science to make sure they work. He says they're all good, so...
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
How many percentage of persons test and verify all the experiments of science?
What to speak of repeating them not even all the experiments in their specific field of interest they would do it or consider doing them.
I don't think many people do it, and all goes on faith in science and many a time blind-faith in science.
Any guess
Regards

_____________
The thread was conceptualized from post#223 paarsurrey
You are dead wrong on this one. Scientists constantly test and try to disprove the theories put forward by other scientists. It is literally a constant process, as that is how scientists can make a name for themselves. There is absolutely no blind-faith in science.
 
I would guess that the amount of re-testing is roughly proportional to the importance of the original work.

Sorry, I wasn't really clear. I was referring to replication rates.

Medicine, psychology and neuroscience are some that score pretty badly.
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How many percentage of persons test and verify all the experiments of science?
What to speak of repeating them not even all the experiments in their specific field of interest they would do it or consider doing them.
I don't think many people do it, and all goes on faith in scientific method and then science and many a time blind-faith in scientific method and or science. While sceintific method having relevance pertinence to all aspects of life is also doubtful and not certain.
Any guess
Regards

_____________
The thread was conceptualized from post#223 paarsurrey

"All", covers an awful lot of territory. Is there any particular one that stands out to you?
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
How many percentage of persons test and verify all the experiments of science?
What to speak of repeating them not even all the experiments in their specific field of interest they would do it or consider doing them.
I don't think many people do it, and all goes on faith in scientific method and then science and many a time blind-faith in scientific method and or science. While sceintific method having relevance pertinence to all aspects of life is also doubtful and not certain.
Any guess
Regards

_____________
The thread was conceptualized from post#223 paarsurrey

If something can repeatedly and consistently be experienced, observed, tested, confirmed, etc. then it would be imbecilic to call it "blind faith".
Watching the willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest grasp at straws in futile desperation is pitiful and embarrassing.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Were computers and the internet really created through formal science though?
I wouldn't say so directly. However, electrical voltage/current, measurement and manipulation/usage of such, formulating resistors, transistors, capacitors, testing/knowledge of metals involved to ensure the proper resistance, or lack thereof, the science that goes into creation and testing of polymers/plastics, battery composition, formulation of adequate heat-sinking devices, etc. etc. etc.... there's not really much to a computer that science hasn't touched in one form or another.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
My apologies, I really should post something more cogent than what I did earlier. The earlier post just sums up my general reaction to the opening post. :sweat:

Given that the sum total of all scientific endeavors is something on the order of hundreds of thousands of studies (if not millions), it's purely rhetorical to ask something like "how many people test all of these themselves." The answer is zero. It's impossible to do. It would take multiple human lifetimes, so unless humans become (gods forbid) immortal somehow, it will never happen. That said, equating this impossibility with the sciences resting on faith that is analogous to that Abrahamics have about their Bible or their god does not follow (and even less so for
blind faith). You don't have to travel to China and personally witness the great wall to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that it exists. Likewise, you don't have to independently verify every single study ever done to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the findings are valid and have some particular application.
 

Fire_Monkey

Member
How many percentage of persons test and verify all the experiments of science?
What to speak of repeating them not even all the experiments in their specific field of interest they would do it or consider doing them.
I don't think many people do it, and all goes on faith in scientific method and then science and many a time blind-faith in scientific method and or science. While sceintific method having relevance pertinence to all aspects of life is also doubtful and not certain.
Any guess
Regards

_____________
The thread was conceptualized from post#223 paarsurrey


So, what is the point of your post? That since only a small percentage of the global population are working scientists who conduct and chronicle and report their tests and their findings, that we should doubt science? And give it no more credence that, say religion? Or psuedo science such as Astrology or Paranormal studies?

If that is indeed what you're saying, I disagree. Sure, only small percentage of people are working as scientists, so those tests and theories, and Laws that result from them are indeed postulated and written by only a few. But here's the thing: those claims that science makes can be tested by anybody. So, you doubt some aspect of scientific claims? Well, be our guest! LOL. Go ahead and feel free to test them yourself.

This is how science is done, btw. We cal it the Empirical Method. Testing, observation, reporting. Peer review. More testing, etc. And please make no mistake...the group of scientists who are working in all the fields are not some big bad cabal who stick together and all have the same agenda to feed you what they want you to believe.
No...the truth could not be farther from that. In fact, most scientists LIVE for the chance to disprove somebody else's theory. And to disprove what was till then thought to be a LAW would be the best thing ever! Nobel Prize worthy work!

This is what the process of Peer Review is all about. You should read up on it yourself. Journals and articles are published all the time by scientists, and those articles are fair game for others to refute. A scientist would much rather prove something wrong than to just go along and admit it is correct.

So don't worry, the critique and close scrutiny of the scientists you speak of is already being done for you. But, again, feel free to jump in at any time and disprove something they tell you is true.

Hope this helps!
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
So, what is the point of your post? That since only a small percentage of the global population are working scientists who conduct and chronicle and report their tests and their findings, that we should doubt science? And give it no more credence that, say religion? Or psuedo science such as Astrology or Paranormal studies?
If that is indeed what you're saying, I disagree. Sure, only small percentage of people are working as scientists, so those tests and theories, and Laws that result from them are indeed postulated and written by only a few. But here's the thing: those claims that science makes can be tested by anybody. So, you doubt some aspect of scientific claims? Well, be our guest! LOL. Go ahead and feel free to test them yourself.
This is how science is done, btw. We cal it the Empirical Method. Testing, observation, reporting. Peer review. More testing, etc. And please make no mistake...the group of scientists who are working in all the fields are not some big bad cabal who stick together and all have the same agenda to feed you what they want you to believe.
No...the truth could not be farther from that. In fact, most scientists LIVE for the chance to disprove somebody else's theory. And to disprove what was till then thought to be a LAW would be the best thing ever! Nobel Prize worthy work!
This is what the process of Peer Review is all about. You should read up on it yourself. Journals and articles are published all the time by scientists, and those articles are fair game for others to refute. A scientist would much rather prove something wrong than to just go along and admit it is correct.
So don't worry, the critique and close scrutiny of the scientists you speak of is already being done for you. But, again, feel free to jump in at any time and disprove something they tell you is true.
Hope this helps!
"Sure, only small percentage of people are working as scientists, so those tests and theories, and Laws that result from them are indeed postulated and written by only a few."

This is the point I want to emphasize . Faith is essential.
We humans could make experiments in the physical world and we won't endeavor doing even one experiment without having faith in so many things, its nature would change with the change of the discipline of science. The experiments give one experience and that is the essence of the experiments. In other fields of life only experience has the relevance, experiments are not relevant and are impossible to be done.
I don't deny usefulness of science in the physical realm.
Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
How many percentage test and verify all the experiments of science?

So not many people are involved in the experiments physically but nominally, just some do, others only trust their having done all the experiments, with one or more and or many constants that they cannot change, so they take them for granted. There is sometimes or most of the times or all the times an implied "if", rather a big "if", "if other things remain constant or don't change". Nobody ever provided the guarantee that they won't change. So, trust or faith and sometimes blind-faith is the backbone of science. As long as it "works", it is understood to be correct science until someone finds some anomaly "not-working", so the changes are made for a new that "works".

Regards
 
Top