Does skepticism limit knowledge and progress?

[AgnosticBoy]

I accept that skepticism has its benefits to weed out falsehoods and to counteract those that are gullible. Then there are cases where skepticism can be damaging to knowledge and progress, like when skeptics are quick to dismiss unproven claims. Of course, I don't think skeptics should accept unproven claims, but they should at least give it proper consideration. Instead, what you find if it is not dismissed outright, is one or two lone skeptics take on an issue, and somehow that ends the claim. Nothing more is done.

I think a good example of the bad type of skepticism can be seen in the way UFO phenomenon was treated. During much of the last century and up to a few years ago, scientists did not take UFOs seriously. They probably couldn't even talk much about it because it was considered taboo. But yet, we had many documented cases, and not just from civilians but even government officials. These documented cases continue to pour in.

Sure, now UFOs are being taken seriously, but the issue is that the problems that led to it being taken seriously is still being repeated. Without those issues being addressed, it will lead to present-day matters (like NDEs) and even future matters facing the same delays (or even restrictions) in progress. I think we obviously need to change the way skepticism is performed.

Now I'll leave it to the audience.

For Debate:
1. Can skepticism limit knowledge and progress? Do you agree with the above points?
2. What can be done to address this bad form of skepticism?
3. Should unproven claims (at least the well documented ones) be properly considered as opposed to dismissed?

Related threads:
How is Occam's Razor abused?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Can skepticism limit knowledge and progress? Do you agree with the above points?

3. Should unproven claims (at least the well documented ones) be properly considered as opposed to dismissed?
[/QUOTE]
I'll answer two questions with one reply.

What can be done to address this bad form of skepticism?

To reiterate some of my points from the first post, I believe that skepticism can limits knowledge by limiting what can be explored and what shouldn't. If things are dismissed because they are not proven or because they don't seem to fit in with how the world works (claims of the supernatural, or UFOs, etc) then we potentially ignore things that can turn out to be true if we explore them further, and that's the case even for events that seem to defy our scientific paradigm.

2. What can be done to address this bad form of skepticism?

I think the bad skepticism only has power when it is used by those who have the most responsibility to bring us knowledge and research based methods. If one lone researcher was a hyperskeptic, then that wouldn't impact progress much, but the bad skepticism seems to be rampant. One big thing that should be done is to democratize scientific research. Allow people to study whatever subject matter they want, just as long as the scientific method is used. Today, it seems the subject matter that can be studied is limited or frowned upon if it deals with matters that go against the scientific "narrative" or paradigm. This is how UFOs have been treated, and we've wasted many years, centuries even, of time that could've been spent learning about them.