There's some consensus that broad swathes of TRP are completely unsupported by scientific evidence, and the red/blue disagreement is often over whether this is acceptable.

A moderator says

One of the trickier parts of red pill theory is that some things are so self evident, nobody's done scientific research on it.

and

Here's the issue- almost everything we have in the red pill is either evolutionary psychology or anecdotal.

Sometimes this goes even further, into rejections of scientific evidence.

They couldn't fathom that I could hold my experience higher than their solipsistic statistical analysis.

Some seem to distrust the institutions of research or learning because they're supposedly trapped in the same Blue Pill worldview that TRP escaped.

Another example popped up in PPD too which largely inspired this.

If the only theory about farming was that you have to pray in order for your crops to grow, frustrated farmers looking for something to help them make sense in the world, would pray.

Blue pillers would come along and laugh and insult them and say, "lol praying doesn't work!" but if that's all they ever say, then people are going to continue to pray.

You have to have something that you actually believe in. You have to say, "look, I'm watering my crops and they're growing better than your prayed-for crops." That's how you convince people.

The analogy seems to suggest that evidence of prayer's ineffectiveness is not enough if you're not also "willing to stand up for something" to replace prayer. Lacking evidence that prayer-crops outperform other harvests, TRP (in the analogy) continues to pray because it is comforting, if ineffective.

Contrasting the amount of serious analysis in TRP with the extent and number of claims it makes is startling to me. What can users take on faith, and when should they expect evidence instead?