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

[Thumper]

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

Try thinking about it this way --

• You are an ancient explorer who has just arrived at the shore of the Pacific Ocean. Being an inquiring person, you hypothesize that there are fish in this body of water.
• The alternative to this hypothesis might be that there are no fish in the water.
• To test your hypotheses, you sweep a small dip net into the ocean and pull it out.
• What if you were to put your net in the water many times, and never catch a fish? Does this mean that the hypothesis that there are no fish in the ocean is TRUE? Not necessarily.
• While none of your trials has falsified the hypothesis that there are no fish in the ocean, you have not performed the infinite number of trials that might be required to know (with this method, at least) that there are no fish in the ocean.
• In other words, you have not proven your "no fish" hypothesis to be correct. You have only failed to prove that it is incorrect.

Until you do that one trial that nets a fish, the "no fish" hypothesis must be provisionally accepted, because your observable evidence does not suggest otherwise. But the scientist always must be open to the possibility that a hypothesis may, at some point, be proven wrong.

For a more complete understanding, try -- The Scientific Method

 

[QuestioningMind]

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

The scientific method still remains by far the most effective means we've ever had for determining how the physical world works. No faith is required. It's true that some individuals do take science on faith, but no one has to. Anyone can study or attempt to duplicate any valid scientific experiment.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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...

FYI. This is Ron... just so you know I actually changed my schedule last month to Tuesdays and Fridays 8-5.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Were computers and the internet really created through formal science though?

What are you suggesting computers were created through, if not formal science?

 

[Nakosis]

Were computers and the internet really created through formal science though?

Computers were designed based on scientific principles. Every computer that exists, every time it is turned on and operated is a validation of the scientific principles it was designed upon.

When I make a statement of fact, a formal statement of fact. I provide evidence that supports that statement. That statement is reviewed by peers. The evidence is reviewed by peers. I have to be able to repeat whatever experiment is necessary to validate that statement until the person reviewing it is comfortable that it is repeatable. It's usually a number of people of differing expertise, having various degrees of authority needing to sign off on the entirety of whatever my statement/paper was.

Depending on the experience of the reviewer, those with more experience, know the truth of my statements. They will sign off based on their own expertise. Those with less experience, will question everything. Sometimes they will make a request completely from left field, that I never saw coming. Every reviewer has to be satisfied regardless of how ridicules their request for validation seems to me.

After its been review/approved, I need to take the paper and train other folks who are going to make use of it. Now they generally take my statement on faith, but anyone of them can question any part of it. I have to be ready to show them step by step if necessary every statement is correct and provable. I have to be ready to prove anything at any time to anyone. These are the expectations of my job.

Any scientist should have the same expectations of them. It is important to my or anyone's credibility. So no I don't personally verify every scientific claim. However I do feel there exists a great deal more credibility for something that has gone through this type of review process.

If at anytime, anything doesn't make sense to me, I can question it with the expectation that it can be proven by the person or persons making the claim. And, I'm not always correct. Someone will come along, 5-10 years down the road and prove something I claimed as wrong. It sucks, it brings to question your credibility. So I do my best through every avenue I can think of, to verify that that's not going to happen.

 

[paarsurrey]

Computers were designed based on scientific principles. Every computer that exists, every time it is turned on and operated is a validation of the scientific principles it was designed upon.

When I make a statement of fact, a formal statement of fact. I provide evidence that supports that statement. That statement is reviewed by peers. The evidence is reviewed by peers. I have to be able to repeat whatever experiment is necessary to validate that statement until the person reviewing it is comfortable that it is repeatable. It's usually a number of people of differing expertise, having various degrees of authority needing to sign off on the entirety of whatever my statement/paper was.

Depending on the experience of the reviewer, those with more experience, know the truth of my statements. They will sign off based on their own expertise. Those with less experience, will question everything. Sometimes they will make a request completely from left field, that I never saw coming. Every reviewer has to be satisfied regardless of how ridicules their request for validation seems to me.

After its been review/approved, I need to take the paper and train other folks who are going to make use of it. Now they generally take my statement on faith, but anyone of them can question any part of it. I have to be ready to show them step by step if necessary every statement is correct and provable. I have to be ready to prove anything at any time to anyone. These are the expectations of my job.

Any scientist should have the same expectations of them. It is important to my or anyone's credibility. So no I don't personally verify every scientific claim. However I do feel there exists a great deal more credibility for something that has gone through this type of review process.

If at anytime, anything doesn't make sense to me, I can question it with the expectation that it can be proven by the person or persons making the claim. And, I'm not always correct. Someone will come along, 5-10 years down the road and prove something I claimed as wrong. It sucks, it brings to question your credibility. So I do my best through every avenue I can think of, to verify that that's not going to happen.

"The evidence is reviewed by peers."
It is nothing more than one's faith/trust in the peer review process. It is far from being 100% correct:

"Peer review is touted as a demonstration of the self-critical nature of science. But it is a human system. Everybody involved brings prejudices, misunderstandings and gaps in knowledge, so no one should be surprised that peer review is often biased and inefficient. It is occasionally corrupt, sometimes a charade, an open temptation to plagiarists. Even with the best of intentions, how and whether peer review identifies high-quality science is unknown. It is, in short, unscientific.

A long time ago, scientists moved from alchemy to chemistry, from astrology to astronomy. But our reverence for peer review still often borders on mysticism. For the past three decades, I have advocated for research to improve peer review and thus the quality of the scientific literature. Here are some reflections on that winding, rocky path, and some thoughts about the road ahead."
Let’s make peer review scientific

Faith is the back-bone of science. If there will be no element of faith in science, it will melt down like a snow flurry.
As long as it "works" it is considered to be correct based on faith until someone finds some anomaly of "not-working", it is always short of reality.
Please
Regards

 

[Revoltingest]

In the engineering world, we use science all the time.
This is a test.
Every time you fly or drive without dying, science is verified.

 

[jonathan180iq]

FYI. This is Ron... just so you know I actually changed my schedule last month to Tuesdays and Fridays 8-5.

I'm terribly sorry, man! I had no idea!
I won't edit the original post, so as to keep this response relevant, and I'll just hope that Anti-Science McAntiPants figures it out on his own.

 

[Nakosis]

"The evidence is reviewed by peers."
It is nothing more than one's faith/trust in the peer review process. It is far from being 100% correct:

"Peer review is touted as a demonstration of the self-critical nature of science. But it is a human system. Everybody involved brings prejudices, misunderstandings and gaps in knowledge, so no one should be surprised that peer review is often biased and inefficient. It is occasionally corrupt, sometimes a charade, an open temptation to plagiarists. Even with the best of intentions, how and whether peer review identifies high-quality science is unknown. It is, in short, unscientific.

A long time ago, scientists moved from alchemy to chemistry, from astrology to astronomy. But our reverence for peer review still often borders on mysticism. For the past three decades, I have advocated for research to improve peer review and thus the quality of the scientific literature. Here are some reflections on that winding, rocky path, and some thoughts about the road ahead."
Let’s make peer review scientific

Faith is the back-bone of science. If there will be no element of faith in science, it will melt down like a snow flurry.
As long as it "works" it is considered to be correct based on faith until someone finds some anomaly of "not-working", it is always short of reality.
Please
Regards

Verification and validation are the back-bones of science. You article is showing were folks are straying from this and even point out the lack of this as a problem. They are trying to fix it because they know this is not how peer review is properly done. But, it can be properly done.

It certainly isn't the fault of science that people aren't doing what they are supposed to. I do and I find documents that I am disappointed by all the time. You want to compare faith to bad science? I suppose I can't argue with you there.

 

[paarsurrey]

Verification and validation are the back-bones of science. You article is showing were folks are straying from this and even point out the lack of this as a problem. They are trying to fix it because they know this is not how peer review is properly done. But, it can be properly done.

It certainly isn't the fault of science that people aren't doing what they are supposed to. I do and I find documents that I am disappointed by all the time. You want to compare faith to bad science? I suppose I can't argue with you there.

People here do discuss problems humans face from the bad religion, all the time, they have not problem with the truthful religion if correctly understood and acted upon.
In that scenario, bad science need also be discussed.

The truthful religion and good science go hand in hand in the human life, having no contradictions.
Regards

 

[Quintessence]

Faith is the back-bone of science.

No, not even remotely. But I don't wager you will stop telling yourself this if other people attempt to explain to you why this is not so.