It is valuable in science to test the things we think we already know, because there is a history of them sometimes being proved false. Plus, even if we were ri

It is valuable in science to test the things we think we already know, because there is a history of them sometimes being proved false. Plus, even if we were right, it is valuable to learn why the things we know are true. (That said, it is possible to get overexcited about the cases where science disproves the things we think we know, because those are the things we hear about and it generates cognitively-available surprise and attention. But most of our implicit knowledge about the world is actually mostly accurate. Both "mosts" I used are required; a lot of our implicit knowledge is heuristic, and almost always has edge cases and domains where it will turn out false. But for the most part, it works or, you know, we'd die.)