In a nutshell: To me, skepticism is about science. It’s about assessing claims made about the world and things in it, and determining through rigorous inquiry the most realistic, reasonable beliefs concerning the claim under discussion. Sometimes, no assessment can be made on the basis of incomplete evidence, and a matter goes unsolved, like some criminal cases, and no conclusion can be made. This happens, but as we both know, does not strengthen support for anything ‘out of this world.’
Troythulu is the expert here. Mahalo for your input, Troy. Given that definition, then, I’m a skeptic. “Out of this world” doesn’t exist, that’s certain. And science is the crucible.
As I’m a metaphysician I’d qualify “science” as “science as it is now.” Science has went through at least five iterations since Aristotle. Even the science of CE 1850 (prior to Michelson and Morely, etc.) delivered a different result than science after. Of course, with the advent of Einstein and Bohr our knowledge of the world was transformed. But the general scientific method stays the same, the thing that changes is our comportment toward the method. The truths that this method delivers today (science as it is now) would have been taken for magic prior to the Renaissance, and no doubt the truths of science in the 22nd century would seem like magic to us today. But that doesn’t mean we open the door to a myriad of nonsense, we have to stick to science as it is today.
Troythulu
November 21, 2010 at 4:54 pm
In a nutshell: To me, skepticism is about science. It’s about assessing claims made about the world and things in it, and determining through rigorous inquiry the most realistic, reasonable beliefs concerning the claim under discussion. Sometimes, no assessment can be made on the basis of incomplete evidence, and a matter goes unsolved, like some criminal cases, and no conclusion can be made. This happens, but as we both know, does not strengthen support for anything ‘out of this world.’
Aliman
November 21, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Troythulu is the expert here. Mahalo for your input, Troy. Given that definition, then, I’m a skeptic. “Out of this world” doesn’t exist, that’s certain. And science is the crucible.
As I’m a metaphysician I’d qualify “science” as “science as it is now.” Science has went through at least five iterations since Aristotle. Even the science of CE 1850 (prior to Michelson and Morely, etc.) delivered a different result than science after. Of course, with the advent of Einstein and Bohr our knowledge of the world was transformed. But the general scientific method stays the same, the thing that changes is our comportment toward the method. The truths that this method delivers today (science as it is now) would have been taken for magic prior to the Renaissance, and no doubt the truths of science in the 22nd century would seem like magic to us today. But that doesn’t mean we open the door to a myriad of nonsense, we have to stick to science as it is today.
Aloha