Image via Wikipedia
Briefly, the skeptical attitude refers to the stance of withholding acceptance of various claims until one has evaluated the available evidence in support of such claims. The more stupendous the claim, the greater the necessary evidence must be. So when someone claims that Omega-3 fatty acids in the form of fish oil supplements increase good cholesterol, for example, we are intrigued but we do not accept the claim without good evidence.
The skeptical attitude pervades science and is applied to scientific claims as well. Scientists are are skeptical of their colleagues' claims and even their own research findings. This is the point of replication and convergence in science. Results must be obtained again and again before too much is made of them. Independent labs must obtain similar results, and differing methodologies must converge before even seemingly trivial findings are trusted. This is a big part of what scientists mean when they refer to science as a "self-correcting process."
Some scientists compartmentalize their skepticism deliberately. They view it as an important part of the scientific enterprise but do not allow it to impact other spheres of their lives, such as the religious sphere. The reasons for this decision are largely psychological, and I do not intend to address them here. My point is simply that such compartmentalization is possible and actually rather common.
Other scientists, and I am proud to count myself among them, see little point in such compartmentalization. We apply the skeptical attitude to most or all spheres of live. In short, we see no reason to grant religious claims an exemption from the requirement for evidence.
The next post in this series will focus on the skeptical attitude in atheism.
Subscribe to Atheist RevolutionTags:
