The [in]compatibility of science and religion

[skepticscott]

67. Skepticism is simply

a way of thought and inquiry in which the strength of one's convictions is directly related to the strength of the evidence supporting those convictions. The degree of certainty with which a skeptical thinker regards something is based on the degree of support it has. Perhaps now you can tell us what part of that you find objectionable.

And do I deny that everyone has biases, including self-styled "skeptics", and that those individual biases sometimes interfere with rational inquiry? Of course not. Modern skepticism, and science in general, deal with that in the same way they always have (duh). By recognizing those inherent biases, and minimizing their effects by making rational inquiry a collective enterprise, where anyone's claim, or rejection of a claim, is always subject to review, re-examination and criticism by others, and is never taken as the final word. Does the system work with 100% effectiveness all the time? Of course not. What does? But it works very well indeed. How many of the things examined and investigated by the modern skeptical movement ("claims of the paranormal&quot remain unaccepted despite strong and credible evidence in their favor (the burden of providing such being always on the claimant) Name us 4 or 5, and point us towards the strong affirmative evidence.

Are skeptics sometimes unduly dismissive of claims? Perhaps. But when you've investigated the same claim 100 times (dowsing, for example), even though it has no plausible mechanism, and you keep seeing the same utter failure to demonstrate it, and the same lame excuses and rationalizations for that failure, that's what happens. Real phenomenon and real abilities simply aren't that hard to demonstrate.