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.
But the vast majority of us don’t “follow the scientific method”. What we do is place our trust in scientific authority. That’s quite a different thing.
So do you think you don’t have enough evidence that jumping out of a skyscraper will kill you? Do you need to conduce experiments by yourself? Or do you trust on the scientific authorities for this?.
If you trust them for this, why not trust them for other things? And if you don’t why not jump of a skyscraper?
I have plenty of evidence. A little of it was even offered by a scientist.
You should stop beating around the bush.
I’m not beating around the bush, that is the core of the scientific method, you have plenty of evidence, even if the majority of it is other people’s research. Apply the same to everything else (like you’re probably already doing anyways, since I doubt you have personally invented the computer you’re typing this on)
So should we conduct our own experiment as to whether getting hit by a train is in fact fatal?