I doubt therefore I am

Evidence is now used more to cast doubt then to represent truth. As a culture we accept that some data could be interpreted in a way that cast some sliver of doubt, no matter how slight, on an accepted truth. Some how doubt is accepted as proof that truth does not exist. This is only possible if we do not look at the evidence in context. Context is everything. A bloody knife suggests foul play. The knife has no context, but it is bloody so... A bloody knife on a cutting board next to a steak that has been trimmed is another thing entirely. Evidence is not in a vacuum. Doubt is not proof even if it is a reasonable doubt.

Knowing is work

So evidence must be compiled. There must be more than one piece of data. We must investigate, examine observe and continue to seek understanding. To often a case is not even made, rather a suggestion at best. This is one of the reasons that a debate about weather or not truth exists is even possible. Those who seek to shake the foundations of life bring a collection of evidence to the fore and suggest that a few pieces of evidence are enough to shatter all human history  and understanding simply because they have discovered that things are not always as they seem. Such discoveries do not nullify truth, rather they inform it. Discovering that our methods of observation can be misleading does not mean that truth cannot be observed. Rather it reveals another aspect of the nature of truth. Namely that observation, work and a real desire to know truth must be continually re-prioritized  lest our work become the important thing. Ego is an enemy of truth.