To independently evaluate the claims, would involve purchasing expensive equipment so I could see the data myself.
Or just becoming a physicist and using the equipment at your disposal from the university, research team, what-have-you.
The point is that it CAN be done. And let's still not forget the tiny fact that nukes explode - so you can know that atomic theory is rather accurate.
Science - it works.
The main issue is, it is not that much of a priority for me, so I just trust the conclusions of other people understanding that it is second hand and third hand data at best and can be flawed in any number of ways.
Once more, you are not required to "just believe it". You can
see the theories working in
practice: planes fly, drones land on other planets, nukes explode, nuclear power stations deliver energy to homes, nuclear sub-marines get to their destinations,...
Yes, planes fly, nukes blow up (hopefully not in that order) but the reason given in textbooks may just be a generalization to not have to explain contradictions.
If there were problematic contradictions, planes wouldn't by flying and nukes wouldn't be blowing up.
In court character witnesses are considered "evidence"
Which is rather scary because we know that "(eyewitness) testimony" is about the lowest form of evidence known to man, as in: the most likely to turn out wrong.
It is not surprising that so many people end up in jail while being innocent, based on nothing but "testimony".
It is also not surprising that any (non-corrupt) court will gladly and happily ignore the "testimony" of dozens of people, based on a single piece of actual independent evidence that contradicts the testimonies.
It's actually the entire basis of the "innocence project".
Check out the website:
The Cases & Exoneree Profiles - Innocence Project
Scroll through those 'solved' cases a bit. You'll note that the vast majority of people were convicted based on testimony and then later released based on actual evidence, mostly DNA.
Prime example of how
real evidence trumps "testimony" every time.
I was allowing for a broad application of the term evidence.
Considering we are talking about what does and doesn't exist in reality, I'ld say we need to be considering scientific criteria instead of social structure criteria.