(October 11, 2021 at 10:11 am)Spongebob Wrote:

(October 10, 2021 at 3:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote: To be fair, the church of Galileo's time were "skeptics" to what he said.

I suppose you could take that position since Galileo's hypothesis contradicted the accepted theory, but he did bring new evidence to the table via telescope.  Even so, it hardly justifies their reaction to his ideas.

Skepticism is not a bad thing; it's a healthy part of the scientific method and forces scientists to do the hard work.

I was being sarcastic about being "fair" to the Church of Galileo's time. Skepticism isn't a bad thing, but fear combined with looking for an excuse to deny facts is willful ignorance, not skepticism. I agree 100% with your post here.

(October 11, 2021 at 10:11 am)Spongebob Wrote: Skepticism is not a bad thing; it's a healthy part of the scientific method and forces scientists to do the hard work.

Exactly.  Skepticism is part of the scientific method.  No new claim should be believed without evidence (and the evidence should be higher if the claim contradicts current theory).

Why?  Any claim must be testable for it to be scientific.  Skepticism requires that the claimant do the testing and present the evidence.  To do otherwise is inefficient for getting to truth, as there are an infinite number of possible claims, and only one reality.  If everyone accepted all claims at face value, and had to do their own testing, everyone would have to test a potential infinite number of claims.

Claims without evidence should be dismissed for pragmatic reasons.  Claims with evidence should be verified.  In some cases, there may be claims that do not yet have evidence, but seem appealing, and scientists do run out and test other people's hypotheses.  In those cases, there is often a theoretical reason to investigate, or perhaps there is just curiosity.

What skepticism ISN'T, is disbelieving something in spite of evidence, for emotional or dogmatic reasons.  The skeptic must always be willing to critically look at evidence -- and that is a learned skill.  Those without critical thinking skills may think they are being skeptics, but are incapable of determining conspiracy thinking from real evidence.

I'll repeat something I say to deniers.  If you're not skeptical of your own skepticism, you're no skeptic.  If evidence is abundant and contrary to your beliefs and you don't question your beliefs, your no skeptic.

It seems to me that this is in line with words that Einstein once said,

Quote:Fantasy is way more important than knowledge because knowledge is limited.
&
The gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.

Meaning that to explain something you first start with fantasy or the most banal idea. Like, how is wind created? - some giant is blowing wind from his mouth.

Or thunder is created by Zeus. Or animals and humans are created by some adobe-wielding wizard.

And then you try to prove your ideas but find completely different answers.

(October 11, 2021 at 12:18 pm)Ranjr Wrote: I'll repeat something I say to deniers.  If you're not skeptical of your own skepticism, you're no skeptic.  If evidence is abundant and contrary to your beliefs and you don't question your beliefs, your no skeptic.

I have absolutely ZERO tolerance for anyone besmirching ABBA. Did I mention I ate tons of lead paint, and was dropped on my head as a kid? 

(Note to self, Did I think this, or type it?)

(October 13, 2021 at 11:56 am)Brian37 Wrote: I have absolutely ZERO tolerance for anyone besmirching ABBA. Did I mention I ate tons of lead paint, and was dropped on my head as a kid? 

(Note to self, Did I think this, or type it?)

You think and type "ABBA" like it's a Tourette's tic.