The Skeptoid definition http://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php: Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.
So, how does this differ from either common sense or science? I don't believe that this is a correct definition.
Ludicrous claims:
These are typically doubted by common sense. When someone says something completely ridiculous, people tend to assume that the person making the claim is the problem. This person could be mentally ill, or affected by drugs, or could be lying.
Scientific investigation:
When you do have rigorous testing or observation then this just ordinary science.
Ludicrous claims with supporting pseudo-science:
This seems to me to be the area where you have genuine skepticism. Where either a claim of scientific support is made based on flawed science or where it is specifically stated that real science does apply somehow. This then tends to create the appearance of evidence when none actually exists.
Also, claims like this tend to elevate faulty or pseudo-science to the same level as real science as though some wacky theory were actually debatable. Skepticism to me has a role in pointing out when two ideas are not of equal merit.
I've seen a number pseudo-scientific claims about bigfoot, aliens, ghosts, etc. If you suggest that the definition of skepticism is identical to the definition of science then simply by being skeptical you are also suggesting that these ideas are worthy of scientific investigation or are legitimate science. And, does not seem to be the case.
So, how does this differ from either common sense or science? I don't believe that this is a correct definition.
Ludicrous claims:
These are typically doubted by common sense. When someone says something completely ridiculous, people tend to assume that the person making the claim is the problem. This person could be mentally ill, or affected by drugs, or could be lying.
Scientific investigation:
When you do have rigorous testing or observation then this just ordinary science.
Ludicrous claims with supporting pseudo-science:
This seems to me to be the area where you have genuine skepticism. Where either a claim of scientific support is made based on flawed science or where it is specifically stated that real science does apply somehow. This then tends to create the appearance of evidence when none actually exists.
Also, claims like this tend to elevate faulty or pseudo-science to the same level as real science as though some wacky theory were actually debatable. Skepticism to me has a role in pointing out when two ideas are not of equal merit.
I've seen a number pseudo-scientific claims about bigfoot, aliens, ghosts, etc. If you suggest that the definition of skepticism is identical to the definition of science then simply by being skeptical you are also suggesting that these ideas are worthy of scientific investigation or are legitimate science. And, does not seem to be the case.
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=268794&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire