Naw...it's not that we don't believe in them, Bobert. It's just that I don't believe anyone's infallible. That includes doctors, scientists, the president, my mother, and the Pope!

;-)

You follow what I'm saying?

The fact that scientists are not infallible is easily proven by an exmination of scientific history over the past few centuries. It reveals that scientists (like all other authority figures) have frequently disagreed with one another on basic doctrine, have opposed each other's scientific views, and have in time been proven wrong in science which they were quite certain of.

If it happened that way in the past, it's happening that way now too...only most people haven't become aware of it yet, that's all.

Just wait and see. Many of today's scientific "certainties" will presently prove to be quite incorrect...and will be replaced by new "certainties" which almost everyone will accept as basic doctrine. (all based, of course, on empirical evidence AND a whole set of subjective assumptions which arise out of that evidence).

The subjective assumptions are exactly where the problem of infallibility rears its head...and they generally arise out of things like:

1. cultural viewpoint
2. established prejudices of one sort or another
3. financial considerations and politics
3. incomplete evidence and incorrect interpretation of that incomplete evidence, driven mostly by (1), (2), and (3) above.

It happened in the 1500s, it happened in the 1800s, and it's happening now.

The most honest thing anyone can generally say about the great questions of life is, "I don't know for sure if my view of this is right. It might be partly right. It might be partly wrong. It's just the best conclusion I can come to at the moment, based on what I know and what I've seen and what I've heard, and I might be wrong."