Regarding assumptions:

Much of my work involves solving puzzles with most of the pieces missing.  It also involves training others.  For both tasks, I have to ask what evidence is available.  What explanation best fits it?  Is there another explanation that fits as well?  Are assumptions being made for which there is no evidence?  Are those coloring the explanations?  I am continually frustrated by the fact that most people jump to conclusions based either on insufficient (or no) evidence and on assumptions that are insupportable.  I frequently see the same thing in publications and even more so on the internet.  I'm afraid I have very little patience with it in others and none in myself.  Any good scientist should feel the same way.  It means I frequently disagree with so-called "received wisdom" that doesn't measure up as well as with reports of the "latest discoveries," which all too often have half-baked conclusions.  By "received wisdom," I mean century-old hypotheses that have not been questioned in the light of the data that have accumulated since.  These become the assumptions on which new hypotheses are based, building a very shaky house of cards.  Fortunately, science is self-correcting, and sooner or later a re-evaluation will be forced.