v. So what am I supposed to do?

"It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one it is, you’re in deep trouble...Some ideas are better than others. The machinery for distinguishing them is an essential tool in dealing with the world and especially in dealing with the future. And it is precisely the mix of these two modes of thought that is central to the success of science."

 - Carl Sagan 

Ubi dubium ibi libertas! And first and foremost we should always be willing to apply some skepticism to our own ideas. After all, we just might be wrong! But skepticism, like most things, can also be taken too far. This exquisite balance requires a rigorous method for advancing our knowledge. Human reason is at the heart of that method, and empirical evidence is how we validate our ideas - or, more accurately, falsify them. However, openness to new ideas and experiences is what pushes the envelope on our understanding.

But all ideas should be subject to questioning, and genuine questioning shouldn't result in ridicule. As the old cliché goes, there are no stupid questions. However, our answers should be based on the evidence and subject to change in light of new evidence. We must also evaluate our information sources. In this regard, Robert Harris' Evaluating Internet Research Sources is a classic for our information age. And Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit is still a relevant guide to reasoning through these questions.

In the end, the process we use to determine the facts and evaluate the evidence is much more important than just knowing (or being able to Google) the facts and the evidence.

James Randi: James Randi Educational Foundation.