Witness Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

Lastly, as stated before; much of (at least my) scientific knowledge is based on the observation and testimony of others.

Let's cut through the bullshit. Science leaves behind a trail of method and observation, which anyone that chooses to do so can replicate. If the findings are different, science leaves open the possibility of error, always welcoming correction. You are attempting to conflate this 'testimony of others' with the non-repeatable claims of superstitious ignorant ancients.

You're simply wrong. You can either admit your error or apologize to everyone for your intentional obfuscation. The only other alternative is for us to believe you are too fucking stupid to understand the distinction. The facts are plain; the perceptive truth is up to you.

I believe that you are missing the point. I'm not saying that an event that happens once, and a description of how natural forces proceed are the same. There is certainly an advantage of being repeatable. However, there is also a difference in what is being claimed. Even if further experiments show the prior scientific claims to be incorrect, it doesn't mean the initial claim is necessarily lying, or deluded about their results. It means they are incorrect about why they got their results or that some factor is missing.

A claim that is repeatable, does mean that more people can witness to what is claimed. However even some scientific tests cannot be repeated by everyone, as they destroy the evidence being tested. You do seem to be validating that multiple witnesses are better testimony. But even if it is possible, that I could tests a claim, it is unfeasable for me to have the expertise, time, and money to test every claim, so I must rely on the testimony of those who have. And in regards to history, it is unreasonable to expect this.