If one is of above average intelligence, and one is willing to put in sufficient effort to learn a given field, then one could understand most any area of science, and given the appropriate apparatus and sufficient time and effort, reproduce any experiment that is reproducible. (obviously, not all results are reproducible.) However, we don't need to go to that much trouble for every field of science, because of the use of the Scientific Method. When the scientific method is followed, it produces reliable results. "Reliable" doesn't mean 100.000% correct, it's more like 'best available knowledge'. The Scientific Method is self-correcting. It may not happen overnight, but it slowly advances toward more perfect knowledge. If a scientist is particularly successful at correcting past misunderstanding, or putting a field on firmer ground, they are rewarded with prestige and usually money. That's one of the driving forces of the self-correction.
Well, half the people are below average by definition, and can't actually do so, so they must rely on faith/trust.
The Scientific Method is well and good in theory, but as an outsider we have no way to ensure that this was actually followed in practice. Most papers have nowhere near the information to actually provide evidence for it.
And people who try to introduce things that are too far ahead of the times will be excommunicated. It happens.
The fact that a nuclear power plant creates electricity only tells us that something is spinning the generators. For all we know, all that business about neutrons and protons was just made up be a cabal of high priests who don't want us to know the truth. I would contend that we don't need to 'believe' the atomic theory or evolutionary theory; we can simply consider the odds of it being a massive fraud, that hundreds of thousands or even millions of scientists and technical people are all pulling the wool over our eyes, and we know that those are very long odds. Of course, these are examples of very solid theories. What about something messier, like climate science? It's less precise, but the Scientific Method still applies, and that provides a measure of confidence that doesn't involve faith. Faith is when you accept something without evidence. While evidence of climate change that can be understood by laymen abounds, the Scientific Method having been employed means that trained people have examined the evidence in detail, so every single one of us doesn't have to.
Well, yes, lots of things may be wrong with the theory, but your lights and mine get lit up, and I'd say that's good enough for a layperson. The fact that it works is proof enough that some people somewhere do understand enough of the system.
How would you convince me that the Scientific Method was actually followed in this case ?
You know even the Catholic Church employs some variation of the Scientific Method to "prove" miracles. That's where the Devil's Advocate comes from.
And I'm sure that the "trained" Archbishops all agree with the pope.
There seems to be two arguments in this thread. One is the epistemological quagmire that questions how we can really "know" anything. I'm sure this is important on some level, but I don't see it getting us anywhere useful. The other is the swirling cauldron of lies argument, where nothing can be trusted unless we can directly sense the evidence. This is a symptom of a societal problem. Various of us don't trust the government, corporations, science, academics, the military, the church, or any institutions to speak of. We don't even think very highly of our neighbors and coworkers, considering how the degree of even semi-organized socializing has declined over recent decades.
I have to ask, do you really think that the Government deserves our trust ?
Their science can be all wrong. (See: Food Pyramid)
It's hard to change the government opinion on anything. I don't know if you remember how the AIDS patients had to fight to get their illness acknowledged.