I am a high school student that believes as many others that natural sciences is an area of knowledge that is about reliable information. However, I see that scientific instruments play an significant role in the reliability of findings to form scientific knowledge assertions. Nonetheless, from my point of view, I still see that reliability of instruments is important in all fields of natural sciences which include: chemistry, physics and biology, in forming knowledge assertions.
Is it true that the degree of reliability is important in all fields? Which one is more about the general idea?
Example: in physics, lots of measurements are based upon specific measurement such as finding the amount of voltage using a voltmeter (there are lots more)and clearly the results have to be accurate and precise to draw conclusions about the measurement.
Counter example (general idea): Foucault’s pendulum, the rotation of earth, accuracy and precision is not that much of a requirement when compared to other findings to ensure the validity of a knowledge assertion.
Please let me know if my question is clear?
If there are studies that show the comparison let me know?