Science is not skepticism. Skepticism is a premise of science. It is built into the method. The reason why replicable results are preferred over unsubstantiated claims is because it soothes the skepticism of hard-nosed thinkers.
But science is much more than skepticism, and indeed, too much skepticism hamstrings scientific understanding. Wegener's theory of continental drift is a good example: skeptics asked "How could entire continents move?" Faced with no answer, the hypothesis was sidelined. Their question was fair; they weren't being too skeptical; but sometimes, the same skepticism that drives the scientific process also hampers it.
It's not that I disagree with the thrust of your post, Rob. I just thought that was fertile ground for discussion, too.
But science is much more than skepticism, and indeed, too much skepticism hamstrings scientific understanding. Wegener's theory of continental drift is a good example: skeptics asked "How could entire continents move?" Faced with no answer, the hypothesis was sidelined. Their question was fair; they weren't being too skeptical; but sometimes, the same skepticism that drives the scientific process also hampers it.
It's not that I disagree with the thrust of your post, Rob. I just thought that was fertile ground for discussion, too.
