4 ms·

>In short, one should reserve a degree of skepticism for skepticism. Why though? In what way does it benefit me or society to give everyone with a theory atten

by Loocid 3y ago

>In short, one should reserve a degree of skepticism for skepticism. Why though? In what way does it benefit me or society to give everyone with a theory attention? Yes, some percentage of the time these theories are true, but I feel they are lost in the noise of every other false claim. If your belief is true, prove it, but if you can't, why should I care? In my opinion, skepticism should be the default.

mekoka 3y ago
Your reply clued me in into what was meant by one should reserve a degree of skepticism for skepticism. Couldn't understand what was meant from the previous argument. I agree with the sentiment that some sane skepticism should be the default, but only as long as it's a genuinely neutral stance that is open to evaluate the arguments that support a claim. Skepticism tends to be perceived as a key quality in critical thinkers, so nowadays, everybody thinks they're a skeptic. Right? However, what is presented as skepticism, if observed under a lens, can often be traced to plain ol' denial, or dogmatism in favor of a competing hypothesis. Imo, the weakest link of the scientific method is the human element, with its various biases and motivations. Good science is still being done, but I believe that nowadays we tend to give scientists too much moral and ethical credits, despite the mounting evidence that we should be skeptical not only about their conjectures, but also their refutations.
Daub 3y ago
I agree that any claim should be supported by proof or at least evidence, especially if it is a novel claim. Furthermore, the responsibility for doing so falls upon the 'claimee'. I will also observe that default skepticism can easily become entrenched skepticism. An example: in 1867 the youngish James Clerk Maxwell presented the theory of radio waves to the esteemed old men of the Royal Society. They dismissed his idea, claiming it to be a form of induction, despite being presented fairy strong theoretical and practical evidence to the contrary. To quote Arthur C Clarke: "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." Or to quote Shakespeare: "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

by Loocid 3y ago

mekoka 3y ago

Your reply clued me in into what was meant by one should reserve a degree of skepticism for skepticism. Couldn't understand what was meant from the previous argument. I agree with the sentiment that some sane skepticism should be the default, but only as long as it's a genuinely neutral stance that is open to evaluate the arguments that support a claim. Skepticism tends to be perceived as a key quality in critical thinkers, so nowadays, everybody thinks they're a skeptic. Right? However, what is presented as skepticism, if observed under a lens, can often be traced to plain ol' denial, or dogmatism in favor of a competing hypothesis. Imo, the weakest link of the scientific method is the human element, with its various biases and motivations. Good science is still being done, but I believe that nowadays we tend to give scientists too much moral and ethical credits, despite the mounting evidence that we should be skeptical not only about their conjectures, but also their refutations.

Daub 3y ago

I agree that any claim should be supported by proof or at least evidence, especially if it is a novel claim. Furthermore, the responsibility for doing so falls upon the 'claimee'. I will also observe that default skepticism can easily become entrenched skepticism. An example: in 1867 the youngish James Clerk Maxwell presented the theory of radio waves to the esteemed old men of the Royal Society. They dismissed his idea, claiming it to be a form of induction, despite being presented fairy strong theoretical and practical evidence to the contrary. To quote Arthur C Clarke: "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." Or to quote Shakespeare: "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy".