We all use "be-live" systems Bette. Five'll getcha ten that what Tom really means is unvetted "be-live" systems are the problem. You have to be-live in the idea of shape just to organize the visual field, see?
There isn't an atom of data out there that will make a bit of sense unless you have the software (belief system) with which to interpret it.
The crux of the matter is to not be trapped by only one piece of software... or more importantly ,not be trapped by the idea that that piece of software is the only one.
"To a man who knows only how to wield a hammer, all the world's problems are nails. If they can't be solved this way, they are unsolvable".
I think its in the California DVD where Tom talks about mentally filing each of our perceptions (each of which is a hypothesis) with an associated confidence level, with some perceptions being 50%, some 75%, some 99%, but nothing can be 100%.
we cannot be absolutely sure of anything, including our own existence.
so the correct open/skeptical attitude is that we operate with a matrix of hypotheses that fit the data best we can, and try to not let the wish father the thought.
however, if my data closely fits and overlaps with the data of another person, or more importantly closely fits the data of a person who I perceive to be more competent than myself, such as Tom or others here, it would be rational to assign a higher probability to their observations and hypotheses that I cannot yet verify personally, especially if their data can be triangulated with other sources, and if their information continues to be consistent with my experience of reality.
Like when a highly credible guy like Dr. Technical walks in from an outside system and confirms Tom's data, I mentally bump up the probability of this dataset in my mind, which intensifies my comfort and motivation.