posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:42 PM
Skepticism can only be used in a case to case basis, the whole idea is to question every case. This is how I think of it anyways.
Credulity is the opposite of skepticism, So a skeptic should not just ever accept a anything until it is proven or observed.
Even when I see something I can not explain or has not been explain does not mean I should switch to pseudoskepticism. This would again is not
I am trying to show that when you start to believe something because something is unexplained you are no longer in the area of skepticism.
Also skepticism is not the denial of the unexplained, it is the questioning of everything.
I know some "skeptics" seem to think they have the answer before they enter a thread here at ATS (or anywhere in the world) but they are not
truly skeptics in my eyes they are not questioning anything they are just giving a robotic answer.
A skeptic is not necessary the same as a "debunker". I see some debunkers right here on ATS that just flat on deny everything and everything not
giving a example or reason. Again not questioning not skeptic.
The reason I am posting this is because I feel some of you think skepticism is the opposite of anything questionable, when in fact it is to question
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true
skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved.
– Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism
In short, Prove your claims and you will have skeptic followers.
Here is my favorite definition of skepticism.
A method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing.
[edit on 19-2-2010 by nophun]