re: #94 Sergey Romanov

I’d suggest it’s not about “what is true” but about “how laymen can know what is probably true in regard to complex topics”. We can defer to the experts. If the experts have a consensus, then the most reasonable course for a layman is to accept it. It doesn’t mean it’s some sacred truth or dogma. The consensus may be wrong, and then hopefully with time it will be corrected.

If the so-called “skeptics” deny this approach, they should propose another. I fail to see, though, how another approach is possible. One cannot become an expert at everything. Experts are laymen when it comes to the topics outside their expertise. So how can one function intellectually, without going into the absolute skeptic mode and without becoming an expert on everything?

You forget the insane arrogance and raging conceit of the right, that likes to claim that Sarah Palin has smarts and so does every other bumpkin, that is equivalent to a scientist’s.