Reply #74: ridicule?

[lazarus]

Just because we don't agree?

No, we ridicule things that deserve to be ridiculed.

Allow me to clue you in to something that you obviously are completely unaware of:

Most, if not all, skeptics would LOVE to find something truly mysterious or "supernatural". Telepathy works? Great, we've got a whole new area of scientific research to jump into!

Notice that the accepted date for the first humans in North America keeps moving back, and back, and back, as evidence piles up. No, archeologists don't just accept the first evidence that comes along. But as it builds, accepted facts and theories are modified to fit the new evidence.

That's called the scientific process. It's also a clear demonstration of how scientists for the most part are very open-minded.

We're not afraid that something might come out. And scientists don't really give a shit if things don't "fit neatly into proscribed theories", whatever that means.

Theories are shifted and adapted all the time. You see, a theory is simply a framework that is used to explain facts. If the facts change, the theory must change.

If you're going to attack scientists and skeptics, it would help if you knew some of these very basic elements.

If you want to accuse scientists and skeptics - who pride themselves on being seekers of truth - of wanting to stop new ideas and being afraid of them, you'll need something more than being upset because we've debunked some crap. Maybe like offering supporting evidence.

In this thread, none has been provided except vague second hand accounts and writings from the Weekly World News.

But why not tell me what new ideas scientists and skeptics are afraid of, and why we would be afraid of them? I'm keen to know, since I'm a skeptic, and I'm not afraid of new ideas, or new facts, or anything new. I just want some evidence, something people who don't like skeptics seem to have a hard time digging up.