You need to take my concept in its totality, Poor Richard. The first aspect of this is: Do you believe in the truth... If you don't believe that--or don't believe that 'we' can ever know that--then, as I've said, the only basis for which 'rational thought' can attain is more 'political' than it is 'truthful'. Then, like reed9, holding up 'authorities as the proof' is the order of the day....
Maybe you should define what you mean by "believe in the truth", because I really have no idea what you're trying to say in this post. And perhaps you can explain what criteria you use to determine the probability that a proposition or hypothesis is true.
I am not holding up authorities as proof. I am holding up established scientific facts as the best approximation of truth that we have. I am saying it is unreasonable, irrational if you will, to cling to poorly supported fringe hypotheses over well supported established theories. And I am especially saying that public policy ought to adhere to the best available science, regardless of our personal preferences or beliefs. Where the science is murky, such as with genetically modified crops, there is room for reasonable debate over how cautious public policy should be.
It's really not complicated. When the vast majority of experts in a field reach a consensus, then we ought to proceed as if that is most likely true. If new evidence changes that consensus, then we also ought to change our mind. Radical new hypotheses which overturn established theory have a correspondingly higher burden of proof - we should not lightly abandon everything we think we know.