most of us agree on the matter of religion because we think the evidence is clear-cut enough to lead us to the same conclusion.
Right, OK.
But one thing:
In each of these cases, the answer is simply yes or no.
Science is not nearly so black-and-white. If it were simply a matter of running an experiment with "good methodology," it would be easy. But I know how academia works. It's messy.
For instance, does the available evidence support the conclusion that this new thing causes cancer? Yes or no, please. Because the scientists don't agree, and it's not a simple matter of figuring out which side is being irrational.
For instance, does the available evidence support the conclusion that this new thing causes cancer? Yes or no, please.
Which new thing?
As I said, humans are fallible, we have disagreements about factual matters. If we were all perfect judges of evidence, then all scientists with access to the same information would agree on how likely it is that some thing causes cancer. Sometimes making judgments of evidence is hard, sometimes it's easier. That doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer in each case.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.