> Why do these scientists assume the worst as a starting point? You just described the Karl Popper criterion. [0] It's the most rigorous way of doing science.

> Why do these scientists assume the worst as a starting point? You just described the Karl Popper criterion. [0] It's the most rigorous way of doing science. The same also kind of exists in law with the innocent "till proven guilty" [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability