I am not suggesting that I came up with the means of clarifying such things, I am suggesting that there is one, and only one, way to do so.
Go ahead, give it a guess! I promise that if you don't get it on your next post then I'll let you off the hook here and we can proceed on from there.
LOL! Plate tectonics isn't even presented as a fact by most of those who hold to it as a theory! It is clear that there was, at some point in the past, one large land mass. You can see on a globe how well the continents fit together. I can remember noticing that when I was in second grade! That's how obvious it is. Plate tectonics, however, isn't about whether "Pangea" ever existed but about HOW continental drift happens. Put simply, there is no known mechanism for plate tectonics. The theory is based (largely) on the assumption that convection currents in the mantle drive the movement of plates. These currents have never been directly observed, only inferred. In other words, the presumed existence of convection currents is an ad hoc rescue device used to arbitrarily provide a mechanism for the theory. That is the opposite of science. In fact, it is precisely what atheists claim God to be!
This sort of thing is rampant throughout modern "science", by the way. Evolution, cosmology (i.e. the Big Bang Theory), astronomy, geology, and especially the "soft sciences" such as archeology, paleontology, psychology are filled to the brim with ad hoc rescue devices to the point that the prevailing theories in these fields (and others) are completely unfalsifiable. Evolution and the Big Bang theory are sort of tied in the race to see which major theory can have the most holes in it and still survive in the mind's professional scientists.
So I want to be clear here. I don't mind mentioning some specific field of inquiry for use as an example of a contested issue and I don't mind making some cursory observations concerning it, as I just did above, but let's not side track the discussion by launching into a discussion that is focused on that specific example.
In answer to your question, I'd say that I determine the veracity and pertinence of underlying facts (regarding any particular issue) the same way you do, except that, unlike you, I do it in a manner that is not self-contradictory and that doesn't tacitly undermines my entire worldview.
So, once again, give it a guess what it is you think I'm driving at here and if you don't get it. Then I'll just make the point and move on.
