ABSTRACT
It is often difficult for most of us to critically judge the position of another scientist in an area where we know very little. We often look for faults in their reasoning, but seldom know enough about the data underlying their position to adequately critique it. Occasionally, we hear or read a paper in our field and can evaluate not only the logic, but also the underlying data. For many of us in specialized fields, where information is constantly being added and is poorly circulated, it is common to find a position that logically sounds good, but is predicated on erroneous information. This situation often establishes an opinion as fact rather than as a testable hypothesis.
