You have to provide people with background information if you have a view that is not mainstream. Since most people with views that aren&#x27;t mainstream are probably wrong, it is a weak signal that their beliefs are wrong, too. But it is probably only a weak signal, and if you try to use it in an argument, you are being a very rude arguer. They can always respond, &quot;Yes, I understand my ideas are not mainstream, that&#x27;s why I have to provide you with background knowledge that you don&#x27;t receive through education and zeitgeist. There is no other way to convince you than to provide you evidence.&quot;<p>This doesn&#x27;t directly address whether there is a difference between peoples beliefs being grounded in faith vs. logic, however. For that, I think that what you are really seeing is that in certain fields, like sciences, you can make complete arguments grounded in logic without referring to extensive outside information, or outside information that is beyond criticism. In arguments that are based on soft fields like social trends, you have to make arguments based on many examples and extrapolations. I think these arguments will necessarily seem more faith-based. The evidence in these fields is so wishy-washy, that everyone is essentially operating on faith, because there is usually not enough information to justify anyone&#x27;s certainty.