IMO, there are three bases for dis/belief in a theory: 1) the supporting evidence is compelling, 2) the counter evidence is not, and 3) the alternative theories

IMO, there are three bases for dis/belief in a theory: 1) the supporting evidence is compelling, 2) the counter evidence is not, and 3) the alternative theories are not. The authors (seem to) mention only basis 1, but not 2 or 3. But it's the interplay among all three that must tip the scale if the thought process is truly scientific. However I doubt any non-scientist could enumerate serious counter theories to the scientific status quo for evolution, GMOs, vaccines, or climate change -- other than citing probability and the burden of proof as insufficient for their adoption. Personally I know little evidence that GMOs are toxic, so I side with non-toxic. Same for vaccines (now that Wakefield is wholly discredited). Same for counter-theories to evolution, though that's such a big topic, it'd be silly to endorse all or none of it, especially at the fringes. Evolution's chief strengths are its longevity and that there's no viable alternative theory for speciation. The existence of global warming AND man as its cause also suffers from a lack of viable alternative explanations. But is this scientific thinking, or just pragmatism? I disbelieve unless you can convince me otherwise. That's just common sense. The OP doesn't seem to address "burden of proof" in judging scientific theories, except to combine the three bases under "justification". But I think the distinction between the three is essential, as is their visible presence, in a rational mind, since science-based belief must reflect the sum of thought that assesses evidence for, against, AND vs. alternative theories. Ignoring any of these three puts one on the road to faith.