You didn't type it, but those are the implications of your words.
Following your logic we couldn't trust anything that we didn't see first-hand. Not even the data a detector gives us, which makes modern science impossible.

No, that isn't my logic. You can trust whatever you want to trust. Often trust is reasonable. Trust just is not scientific.

So when you trust, you just don't get to say you observed it or know it scientifically.

For example, if measuring stuff about the earth was accessible to the average person, I'm not saying I would actually do the experiments. All my neighbors can observe it, so whatever they tell me will be right.

I trust consensus.

(Because it's a p2p, democratic consensus.)

When my dentist says blahblahblahghdjhjrth, I figure he's probably right.

I don't need to see these things with my own eyes and do my own experiments.

A difference with shape of the earth, and probably a few other things "modern science" tells us, vs. things like dentistry, is that I couldn't see it with my own eyes if I wanted to.

That's the critical difference.

When it's within my realm of something I could see and measure, then I'm perfectly happy trusting my peers and consensus.

And when it's not something I could see and measure, it doesn't affect my life anyways.

It seems I didn't make myself clear enough here. I didn't want to say you should read about those experiments. I meant you should repeat those experiments.

Ahh, okay. Fair enough. I think the word "sift" made me think you meant read about them.