I mean, you can’t test everything. And no, following the latest science doesn’t count. Which leaves us authoritarianisming it up like medieval troglodytes.
I mean, you can’t test everything. And no, following the latest science doesn’t count. Which leaves us authoritarianisming it up like medieval troglodytes.
Does science fail at scale?
Why would it?
Because you can’t test everything.
No, but given enough people in the field and enough time, you can test most of what matters. You don’t need to test (and re-test) absolutely everything. Just enough to draw consistent conclusions for the decisions people make.
That’s just a drop of investigation in ocean of assumption. It doesn’t feel very scientific.
We don’t need to know everything, we just need to know enough to make a decision off of. We see the same medication work 10000 times, we have evidence that we should use it. We see that a metal expand the same way when we test it 100 times. We can use that metal when we need something that expands consistently with tempreture. We don’t need to know everything because our lives doesn’t involve everything, and if we do discover something new, we either test it ourselves, or submit it to other groups to test.
Why should you?
Because it might be important
Go find a real scientist that says you should test EVERYTHING. I won’t wait because they won’t tell you that you should.