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?
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?
Last edited: