On Scientific Images

After reading chapter 8 from the Practices of Looking, I've really gained a new perspective on pictures as evidence. Having read earlier chapters from PL which discussed photographs never being able to be the "truth", this chapter shouldn't have came as that much of a surprise. But now I do see how people believe any image that's under the label "scientific." Thus, visual evidence isn't necessarily all that true. Like the video tapes of Rodney King's beating being used as a tool for prosecution as well as the defense. It is possible then, that almost everything can be false. I've never seen rare birds of paradise or Mars or my spleen except for the occasional picture or on Discovery Channel, so there is no confirmation for me of whether these things exist or not except for word of the expertise over and over again. Just because there's a picture, it doesn't mean it's real, especially with camera tricks or technology nowadays. But this thought can go a long way, after all, is the screen I'm typing these characters into really real as well?