Difference between revisions of "Skepticism"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by Bob Ross (talk) to last revision by Dataclarifier) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
"'''Skepticism''' exercised by professional colleagues in the form of [[peer review]] is widely agreed to have been one of the main ingredients responsible for the success of [[modern science]]. ... The need to convince peers, or at least satisfy them that what one suggests is not absurd, has helped to make what is published and accepted as "science" more reliable than it would otherwise be." [http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_20_3_bauer.pdf] | "'''Skepticism''' exercised by professional colleagues in the form of [[peer review]] is widely agreed to have been one of the main ingredients responsible for the success of [[modern science]]. ... The need to convince peers, or at least satisfy them that what one suggests is not absurd, has helped to make what is published and accepted as "science" more reliable than it would otherwise be." [http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_20_3_bauer.pdf] | ||
*Skepticism proper, micro-skepticism, constructive skepticism, is empirical: it looks skeptically at the evidence, because all observations and experiments are fallible; pathological skepticism, macro-skepticism, destructive theory-based skepticism, refuses to look at the evidence because it already knows that the evidence has to be invalid. [http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_20_3_bauer.pdf] | *Skepticism proper, micro-skepticism, constructive skepticism, is empirical: it looks skeptically at the evidence, because all observations and experiments are fallible; pathological skepticism, macro-skepticism, destructive theory-based skepticism, refuses to look at the evidence because it already knows that the evidence has to be invalid. [http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_20_3_bauer.pdf] | ||
Revision as of 07:39, February 27, 2018
"Skepticism exercised by professional colleagues in the form of peer review is widely agreed to have been one of the main ingredients responsible for the success of modern science. ... The need to convince peers, or at least satisfy them that what one suggests is not absurd, has helped to make what is published and accepted as "science" more reliable than it would otherwise be." [1]
- Skepticism proper, micro-skepticism, constructive skepticism, is empirical: it looks skeptically at the evidence, because all observations and experiments are fallible; pathological skepticism, macro-skepticism, destructive theory-based skepticism, refuses to look at the evidence because it already knows that the evidence has to be invalid. [2]