Science is based on the principal of nullius in verba (take no one’s word for it). So your attitude is anti-scientific and likely to fall a foul of Goodhart’s law.
You misunderstand. The real point is that in the case we’re talking about I suddenly discover that my picture of how the world is constructed is all wrong. Not only the world of physics, but the world of politics, culture, etc. as well. It turns out I don’t really understand how it all works which should be very worrisome. And while mundane physics looks more or less the same (after all, I know how to go about my daily life without falling into the sky or somesuch), finding out that societies function in some entirely different manner than I expected is a good cause for alarm.
the scientific approach is think about how to refute the claim that the earth is flat using only information you personally gather
I disagree.
Science is not about having to poke everything with your own finger. In particular, science is perfectly fine with having to deal with uncertain evidence. I think your approach went out of favour somewhere around XVII century.
Science is based on the principal of nullius in verba (take no one’s word for it). So your attitude is anti-scientific and likely to fall a foul of Goodhart’s law.
Which particular part of my attitude is anti-scientific?
That what you describe as the “real point” amounts to an appeal to authority.
You misunderstand. The real point is that in the case we’re talking about I suddenly discover that my picture of how the world is constructed is all wrong. Not only the world of physics, but the world of politics, culture, etc. as well. It turns out I don’t really understand how it all works which should be very worrisome. And while mundane physics looks more or less the same (after all, I know how to go about my daily life without falling into the sky or somesuch), finding out that societies function in some entirely different manner than I expected is a good cause for alarm.
Ok, now your just (intentionally?) missing the point of the hypothetical.
Also, science can and has been (and certainly still is) wrong about a lot of stuff. (Nutrition being a recent less-controversial example.)
Science is a methodology, not a set of conclusions.
At any given moment in time scientists are definitely wrong about a lot of stuff.
Agreed. Which is why the scientific approach is think about how to refute the claim that the earth is flat using only information you personally gather, rather than making snarky comments about the implausibility of the conspiracy.
I disagree.
Science is not about having to poke everything with your own finger. In particular, science is perfectly fine with having to deal with uncertain evidence. I think your approach went out of favour somewhere around XVII century.