> My point is are we suppose to just believe what we are told? Not if you're science-literate. Remember that a scientist assumes an idea unaccompanied by evide

> My point is are we suppose to just believe what we are told? Not if you're science-literate. Remember that a scientist assumes an idea unaccompanied by evidence is most likely false, while a nonscientist assumes the opposite. Let's say someone hears a claim about Bigfoot. If he's a scientist, he will assume Bigfoot is a myth until hard evidence appears. But a nonscientist (a person technically known as an airhead) believes that Bigfoot is real until he is proven not to exist. But consider the burden of evidence -- for the airhead to be dissuaded from belief in Bigfoot, something called proof of a negative would be required, which is an impossible evidentiary burden. After all, Bigfoot could be hiding under some rock on a faraway planet, which means he can't ever be conclusively disproven. Science is an extremely productive outlook, and the modern world is largely defined by science and the scientific outlook. One of the reasons is that scientists don't waste time carrying other people's burdens of evidence, like a belief in Bigfoot. > How do you regard something as creditable? Solid, repeated, empirical evidence, created by multiple disinterested observers. Everything else is unsubstantiated rumor. > How do you figure out the truth from false knowledge? A skeptical outlook and an understanding of how science works. http://arachnoid.com/building_science http://arachnoid.com/building_science