Are scientists being too skeptical?
The scientific method, by definition, must be skeptical. This means that science does not accept something as true unless it can be proved by reproducible means. Then further experiments can be attempted building on what had been formerly proven. What you wonder is “Are scientists being too cynical?” implying that they won’t accept an answer if it is outside of their comfort zone. The question really speaks to whether or not science is willing to accept that which is not demonstrable in a laboratory, namely psychic and paranormal phenomena and matters of intuitive acquisition of information. Personally, I think that some are adamantly opposed to anything reeking of the paranormal, while others readily accept things on faith (at least in their personal lives, but sometimes professionally.) Yet, many of these same skeptical scientists will declare that they believe in God, or in Love. . . .
There is no such thing as Too Skeptical. If there’s been such great advances in parapsychology, why is it that whenever these claims are held up to scrutiny or double-blind trials, they fall apart like a flimsy house of cards? Example: Skepticism saves lives. The reason it’s called “alternative medicine” is because it doesn’t work, and people are duped into it, and die. If it worked, it wouldn’t be called “alternative” it would just be called medicine.
