A peer-reviewed, journal-published, replicated report is worth far more than what you see with your own eyes.
Including my viewing of the report itself? That would be silly. Later you say that the fact that it is a good idea to trust in science is “pragmatically true,” but probably better to say it’s a good rule of thumb. I agree with the spirit of the post, but it goes so far into the hyperbolic that it undermines some other aspects of rationality:
What about the claim that 2 + 2 = 5?
Science cannot prove a nonsensical claim. What about the claim “A and not-A”?
Including my viewing of the report itself? That would be silly. Later you say that the fact that it is a good idea to trust in science is “pragmatically true,” but probably better to say it’s a good rule of thumb. I agree with the spirit of the post, but it goes so far into the hyperbolic that it undermines some other aspects of rationality:
Science cannot prove a nonsensical claim. What about the claim “A and not-A”?