From Part1: There are many discussions on agnostic.com where one member demands proof to substantiate the claims made in another’s comment. Members often have wildly different interpretations of what constitutes proof, what constitutes supporting evidence, and even philosophically how we positively know something. Three definitions of logic were given in Part 1: "What constitutes evidence? What constitutes proof?"

Some members post web links as supporting evidence or as an evidentiary starting point for expressing their beliefs. Many links are from generally respected authors, while others have quite dubious origins especially those related to global warming, quantum mechanics, string theory, or general cosmology. Usually the authors that post unscientific literature on science topics do so without a comprehensive examination of all relevant information. From Feynman: “…[conclusions] in science must be consistent with everything else we know; that the electric fields and the waves we talk about are not just some happy thoughts which we are free to make as we wish, but ideas which must be consistent with all the laws of physics we know. We can't allow ourselves to seriously imagine things, which are obviously in contradiction to the known laws of nature.”

It is frequently difficult for non-expert readers to distinguish between high-quality and suspicious articles on science topics. Other agnostic.com members go to Google, wikipedia, or similar search engines and then weigh in on the topic with an authoritative voice. Search engines offer simplified, condensed overviews that are then interpreted by an intelligent individual who has not weighed the entire body of evidence. My point is: scientific conclusions that are widely held by scientists for a few decades have met a very high standard of evidence. Those who believe the scientists have gotten it wrong, in turn, have a very high standard to show why they think the science is incorrect. (I’m not talking about the very latest findings – scientists often get things wrong initially, but these are corrected in follow up investigations.) Simple opinions that “the results cannot be” or statements such as “they don’t know” are completely worthless.