Difference between revisions of "Skepticism"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (punctuation) |
(replaced dead link http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_20_3_bauer.pdf - with - https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/20/jse_20_3_bauer.pdf) |
||
| 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." | + | "'''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." <ref name=Bauer/> |
| − | *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" [[a priori]] that "the evidence has to be invalid". [ | + | *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" [[a priori]] that "the evidence has to be invalid".<ref name=Bauer> |
| + | [https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/20/jse_20_3_bauer.pdf The Two-Edged Sword of Skepticism: Occam's Razor and Occam's Lobotomy, Henry H. Bauer, ''Journal of Scientific Exploration'', Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 421-427, 2006]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | {{reflist}} | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 10:30, June 3, 2019
"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" a priori that "the evidence has to be invalid".[1]