Posted: Nov 19, 2019 1:27 am
by Spearthrower
Given you just posted this as though it obviously speaks for itself to you, can you defend the progress of the evidence that leads to the unique conclusion that the phenomena is actually representing a hot origin personally? Or are you just trusting the scientific authority without actually knowing?

This is an intriguing notion I have encountered before; it appears to suggest that one must garner the same degree of expert knowledge as specialists in highly technical fields before accepting their findings as valid.

Of course, it has to be noted that this is already part of the process of scientific knowledge acquisition as relevant experts will review any report before publication, and other teams of scientists working in that particular narrow field will be checking and testing the findings to see if they're reproducible under the same conditions.

My position would be that it is the process itself which is largely trustworthy, and one shouldn't be expected to devote their lives to checking every statement made by a team of experts, but rather to hold such finds as distinct possibilities (i.e. 'valid', not 'true') until proven otherwise. This is, of course, not to say that scientific method cannot be exploited or fail at times, but there is a self-correction process both through other knowledgeable human agents actively seeking falsification of a hypothesis, and the fact that any claim must ultimately stand up to the only valid arbiter: further observations.