Reply #16: Bertrand Russell had a pretty good start

[OnTheOtherHand]

The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.

"On the Value of Scepticism"

It really has nothing to do with whether you believe atomic power exists. It has to do with your basis, if any, for believing that Charnin is right and his critics are wrong.

Anything I don't understand or can't see on my own, can't figure out on my own, I shouldn't believe?

It might depend on what you mean by "believe" or "not believe." I'm not sure what to say about this, except that I don't think I have to choose between accepting Charnin's arguments and rejecting whatever parts of modern physics I can't work out on my own.

I'm not sure what black hole argument you mean, but I'm sure I didn't know ahead of time who was right. So it would have been pretty silly of me to take a side based on some semi-readable, smart-sounding article I read on the intertubes. I might say to myself, "That made enough sense that I think it might be right," but I hope I wouldn't say, "Well, it's been proven, even though I don't understand the 'proof' and I've seen no sign that people who know the field find it persuasive."