How can people evaluate scientific questions when they don't understand the science?

This was raised in another thread, but is something I have been wondering about recently.

The question is how we can form a view on scientific questions when we don't have the training, knowledge or expertise to understand the scientific arguments. In a way it's a fairly fundamental question for this site, whose name is a combination of Psi and Science.

I can imagine various views on this:
(1) A denial of the premise - as so much information is available through the Internet, anyone who makes the effort can inform him/herself sufficiently to understand the scientific arguments.
(2) If we can't understand the scientific arguments we shouldn't form a view either way.
(3) If we don't understand the scientific arguments we should follow the scientific consensus.
(4) We can judge the credentials and trustworthiness of individuals who oppose the scientific consensus, and follow their views.
(5) We can proceed on the basis of intuition.
(6) We have just as much right to an opinion as anyone else, even if we don't understand the scientific arguments.

Actually, I don't think there's an easy answer to this question, but I think it's better to reflect on how we make these decisions, rather than doing it without thinking about it.

It's a fair question. My answer would be do the best one can with the tools one has (I'm using the term "one" because if I use "you" it's sounds patronising but then again using "one" I sound the like the ruddy Queen)

I don't automatically listen to someone or take heed of what they say just because they have a PHD or an MD but of course some of the sceptics on here would certainly accuse me of doing that. I would say "collectively" we should be able to get at the truth by bouncing off each other like we're doing on this exceptionally good forum. (better than the previous one)