Occam's Razor Post: Thu May 26, 2005 2:26 p

Date: Thu May 26, 2005 2:26 pm
Subject: My Critique of the Skeptical Manifesto

What I got from this Manifesto was that skepticism is required in science. If you approach science in a "believe everything" way, you're not practicing "good" science.

Then does this mean that all real, factual scientific findings should no longer be tested by skeptics (scientists), since there is nothing further to doubt?

If this is the case, then why are people still trying to either prove or disprove evolution?

Michael Shermer called evolution a fact, and I agree with him. But there are still some skeptical people who try to disprove evolution.

We have one group of skeptics who, through repeated testing and analysis, have determined the evolutionary theory might as well be fact.

But then we have another group of skeptics who don't buy the results and data, and still see evolution as just a theory, or even a hypothesis still.

So why have the first group of skeptics stopped and accepted something while the second group is still searching for answers?

Is there a correct degree or level of skepticism?

My skepticism tells me that the second group of skeptics dont want to believe in evolution because they are trying, in turn, to prove that creationism is correct. But if they used the same determination and skeptic rationality, they would be able to find that creationism is bull shit. As skeptics they shouldn't even be following a religion. All religions are filled with so many gaps and holes that a real skeptic would question and find erroneous.

So then are these second skeptics really skeptics at all? They are trying to disprove evolution scientifically, which would make them skeptics. But if they were skeptics, they would see the error of their ways and eventually realize evolution is correct. But they dont see this, and never look at themselves skeptically.

So can Shermer define a skeptic? By definition, the second group are and aren't skeptics.

One cannot label a skeptic, since there may be several variations to the definition of one skeptic.

I guess that's why he was including those definiions from the OED, so that whoever was reading it would know his angle.