Are scientists being too skeptical?
Marcello Truzzi, one of the founders of CSICOP (the “Amazin'” Randi’s favored organization — though it has recently changed its name), made an interesting distinction. First, there are skeptics, who are open-minded, but only accept a claim when there is sufficient evidence for it, but once there is sufficient evidence they don’t keep rejecting it. Then there are what Truzzi called ‘scoffers,’ who take skepticism to an extreme — they keep rejecting a claim even when there IS strong evidence for it, often repeating over and over again ‘there is no evidence’ in the face of all the facts showing they are wrong. Scoffers often make the emotionally-based claim that even objectively assessing parapsychology evidence will open the doors to superstition and the collapse of science (see Carl Sagan’s “Demon Haunted World”). Scoffers often cite huge amounts of money allegedly being “squandered” on parapsychology research. [SANITY ALERT: all the money spent on ESP and PK research since 1880 amoun
Basically, you can believe things on faith or you can believe things based on scientific evidence. The way science works, it’s based on gathering evidence and coming up with a model of reality that agrees with the evidence. A good model will make predictions, and then you’re off to the lab again to test them. It’s in iterative process whereby knowledge is increased based on logic, observation, evidence and skepticism. Faith-based belief is completely different in that it often does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, or has not YET. My own personal belief is that science does not have all the answers yet. So there is plenty of room for faith and science. I teach science, yet I believe in things that have not been illuminated by science yet. It’s entirely healthy to understand why things fall if you drop them at the same time as you believe in the existence of your own soul or spirit. As long as there is a balance and that you don’t go organizing your life around the positions of the p
As Prof. Merton of Columbia University said, “Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue.” Science and skepticism go hand-in-hand. You can’t have science without it. I tend to think of skepticism as more of an methodological approach rather than a position or something that is a matter of degree. That is, just as you can’t be “too pregnant”, you can’t have too much skepticism. I’m sure others take a different view of this, and some people do seem more skeptical than others, but it’s how I tend see it. I suppose I’m proposing that skepticism and skeptical are not exactly the same thing. Skepticism is part of the philosophy of science in that respect. Because if you take being skeptical to an extreme, you have not skepticism but cynicism which is counter-productive. Another answerer mentioned Truzzi and brought up some points that I think are very good. Being merely a scoffer isn’t being a skeptic. A skeptic can acknowledge the ev
