Along with logic, reason and observation there is touch, taste and smell. Seeing would be the same as observation.

I would say I judge what is real by what I can touch, see, taste, smell, etc. etc.

How can we trust our senses? What kinda question is that? If you feel something do you not trust your sense of touch? If watching a magic show I know not to trust my sense of sight in that situation.

LOL! You remind me of this preacher I saw on T.V. once. He said "There is no true scientific evidence for evolution, true science of course being the bible."

LOL Too funny!!

And so was your comment jesusboy.   Thank you for brightening my day.

Thanks for the offerings so far...forum joiners..but you haven't given me much to chew on yet.

There are many theories on how we determine what is true, or what/how we define knowledge.

Authoritarian - Refer to authorities (usually individuals) who are defined as qualified producers of knowledge.  This could refer to political leaders, religious leaders, or scientists in technocratic societies.

Mystical - Truth obtained from authorities on the supernatural based on their demonstrated supernatural qualifications, usually through ritual and ceremony.

Rationalistic - All knowledge can be obtained through strict adherence to the rules of logic.  Assumes that the human mind can understand the world independent of its observable phenomena and that forms of knowledge exist that are independent of our presonal experiences.  Truth is a priori, just like in geometry and other parts of math.

Empiricism - We can come to truth only through observation using the senses.  The senses may not always be accurate, but any other form of obtaining knowledge is assumed to have less reliablity than what is observable.

Science - a methodology for obtaining knowledge based in empiricism and rationalism.  Has several main assumptions, the biggest (currently) being that all natural phenomenon have natural causes.

Applications of every different method have yielded incorrect results, making it difficult to judge which, if any, is correct.  Most individuals ascribe to more than one method.  All have flaws and assumptions that cannot be proven except by using the same method (which is circular reasoning).  All also fall prey to outside influences and are subject to rejection when society disagrees with the results (regardless of its actual truth).  It seems to me that we often take our truth from whatever sources will give us the correct end.  The best way to judge between them is probably the exact opposite, looking at their assumptions and seeing how reliable they are.