(Continuing the discussion from https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/what-does-the-bgv-theorem-say/6178/75.)
I think this would be a good opportunity to resurrect this thread about direct vs. indirect evidence in the sciences. We’ve covered this before in What is the Meaning of Directly Observable?, but @Jim brings up some comments and questions which I think are commonly asked by laymen:
If by “unaided observation” you mean observation “by the naked eye” or observation similar to the things we find in everyday life, I would say that that among scientists, it’s probably more common to distrust such unaided observations, because selection bias and noise is rampant. In fact, it’s common among in my field of precision measurement to add an unknown blind to the measurement that is only revealed after all data analysis is completed, so as to ensure that during the analysis process, people do not know whether they have a null or non-null result.
I would in fact say that particle physics, which relies more on automated detectors and preset analysis algorithms to process the data, gives more precise results than many other fields like experimental biology or paleontology which (in my limited perception) seems to involve more of the scientist’s active judgment. Although there’s greater distance (i.e. more instrumentation and logical inferences) between observer and observed in physics, the instrumentation is also more understood and consistent.