Yazata
gonna break this up to explain things a little more... especially since you're on the right track but mislead by a few things. it's verbose but it also has important links and references you should read. i kept it simpler and the links are geared more to the layman for the sake of ease of communication.
-
for starters: the bible is all about faith. as in the belief in the absence of evidence. so it is like comparing apples to Michelin radials because they have some rounded parts.
for two: it doesn't matter what you believe, only in what can be repeatedly demonstrated and "proven". as in evidence based repeatable experimentation.
for three: it's not about "truth" as that is entirely subjective. your "truth" differs from ISIS/ISIL, which differs from Buddhists, which differs from Lakota, which differs from christians. truth is culturally defined and entirely dependent upon how you choose to define it, yourself or as a culture. this is important to know.
there are, however, facts. and the one thing that the scientific method is great at doing is eliminating the bullsh*t, subjectivity, or other baggage that humans tend to carry around with them to insure that the facts are demonstrated.
but the one method that is exactly the same is the method that insures the lack of bias and subjectivity and removes doubt in the form of repeatability and validation.
the scientific method (read the link) is a specific set of ways to do every task to insure that your work can be repeated, and thus validated. it uses criteria to define it's scientific evidence (read the link). it narrows down the facts to insure that they're not simply perceived or believed, they're actual facts that can't be refuted, can be replicated by anyone, and are designed to build upon the past knowledge while breaking down the unknown's and wall of mystery. This is also one reason the work tends to be published in studies while being fact checked by peer review. that process allows other professionals to seek out mistakes and find the cracks in the facts. it also allows for replication which leads to the most important part of science: second party validation.
common sense is fallible, but is also has no way to actually check itself against reality. this is one of the more powerful things about the scientific method
this is the "superpower" of the scientific method. this can also be demonstrated by reading history. in the past, it was often assumed that because someone said they were important, or because they had been right about one thing, they were instantly correct about all else. argument from authority, essentially. this is why we have alchemy or astrology, healing magnetic bracelets and snake-oil salesmen.
introducing a methodology to remove bias, the "brain failures" we know exist, and subjectivity while being open to other people checking your work has allowed knowledge to spread incredibly fast. all because of a simple method (linked) to remove the known bias.
you're mixing a lot of info in this misrepresentation of the scientific method. (again, see link above)
for starters: it's not about just replicating observations. it about measurement. precision. removal of bias (a biggie). designing a test that also removes bias to insure that you're not simply attempting to validate your beliefs. (this is common in creationist attempts at "science"... read any creation paper and you see that they go into the "experiment" seeking a specific answer while ignoring refuting evidence)
it's also about never ignoring refuting evidence. this is very important. A great example of this is Zwicky and his 1929 "tired light" hypothesis. (read the link)
more to the point: science never, ever uses consensus. there is no governing body (like in religion) that says: this is what we will put out as factual and f*ck the evidence
that is strictly a religion or pseudoscience thing. it is painfully evident in everything from creationist pseudoscience to the electric universe and other quack attempts to "explain the world" or "redefine physics", etc.
and don't ever get confused when "consensus" is used WRT science. take, for instance, climate science. you will often hear folk say "consensus shows that [insert claim] is factual". this isn't a matter of a vote or some conspiratorial governing body... it's a matter of the overwhelming evidence being repeatedly found that all points in the same direction.
think of it like this: consensus says that what goes up must come down WRT gravity unless, of course, you leave the influence of Earth's pull (as in get far enough away or at a high enough speed to leave the influence of the gravity well). that isn't a matter of "consensus" meaning a vote, but "Consensus" meaning the repeated evidence and experimentation. you don't have to repeat the experiments yet again to insure that they're true. simply throw and apple and compare that to launching a Moon lander.
1- there is some information that can be gleaned from "eyewitness testimony" if you're a trained investigator and know how to remove the crap from the facts.
2- the rest is patently false. it is not in any way the best evidence we have. did you not read the links i left in the thread regarding some of the brain failures which can affect your perception of the world around you... AKA "eyewitness testimony"?
you should read them. or go here for a breakdown on some of the problems of human cognitive failure and issues with belief: the psychology of belief
it's a well researched set of video's that will help you understand what we actually know about our own mental issues (as a race: humans)
but eyewitness testimony isn't just dismissed out of hand... it is dismissed when it's the ONLY evidence, or when the following evidence isn't reputable or even able to be validated.
in that case, it IS worthless. and i can't stress that enough. again, read my link above about levels of evidence (scientific evidence)
again, read my link above about levels of evidence (scientific evidence)
you will understand the argument better when you understand the method and hierarchy of evidence. Another link you may want to consider is the rules of evidence for legal or court proceedings. (read link)
1- i am not telling anyone what to believe. i am stating that belief isn't the same as evidence. just because you believe it doesn't mean it's true. see any schizophrenic for evidence of that one.
2- there is no argument from authority. i always argue from evidence. science is all about argument from evidence. it is also about the specific hierarchy of evidence (again, read those links) establishing and differentiating facts from subjective and perceived beliefs.
3- it doesn't matter if you were there when something was seen. there are ways to finding facts without being present. we built an entire section of science around this to use in courts called forensic science. (read link). just like we know the electric sun or iron sun pseudoscience is crap and plasma discharges did not carve the grand canyon and make all the moon craters ... we obviously didn't have people, let alone scientists, there when it happened, but we do have ways of figuring out what did happen.
don't let your internal need for answers trump reality. watch the youtube link on the psychology of belief. it's well researched and well made. it's also telling and directly relevant to the topic and validates the other psyche links i've left WRT the topic.
again, you are confusing a belief with what can be proven or shown to be factual.
i am not telling anyone how to believe.
i am telling you that belief doesn't mean it's fact.
Amazing how this thread about cranks, quacks, and those sufferring from delusions of grandeur, has seen you rehash many aspects of the paranormal, supernatural, spooky, and mythical in what seems like defiance that someone dare post an article exposing the same cranks, quacks, and delusional characters that inevitably inhabit any science forum.
