can you get a little too skeptical?

There's a fine line between skepticism and cynicism. Are some skeptics forgetting to tell the difference?

killer juice carton

Probably one of the strangest critiques many popular science bloggers get when we talk about very advanced concepts which are still far too complex for us to test, isn't from people who have a grudge against science or conspiracy theorists. Instead, they're from people who say that some of the most radical ideas we have on the drawing board simply can't be done.

They say none of them will ever work, that they all sound too weird or too vague on details and even indulge in biting sarcasm to make sure we know just how little they think of those fantastical concepts. We can't blame them for being skeptical, but skepticism is a two edged sword and being a skeptic doesn't mean that anything outside everyday convention must be immediately waved off as absurd.

History tells us that every time there was a groundbreaking idea, there were more than enough critics to call it nothing more than imagination run amuck. Everything from locomotives to airplanes to manned space flight was once dismissed with sarcasm and strong words. Of course history also tells us that out of the many out- of-the-mainstream ideas really were ridiculous and the number of failed attempts at changing a paradigm in the world of science and technology vastly outnumber successful ones.

So, how do we tell a good idea from a bad one when it comes to things like warp drives, searching for alien life and building space planes? We do the same thing scientists do with all hypothetical concepts. We test them and see if they work, or at least have the potential to work in the future. Keep that in mind when you come across an idea that might sound strange to you. Just because it sounds a little off at first, doesn't mean it's wrong or it will never work.

If it makes predictions you can test at some point in the future, wait until it's put to the test. Running around and declaring what works and what doesn't without doing the proper investigation doesn't make you a skeptic. It makes you a cynic who's approach to new ideas hinders innovation and hobbles scientific discovery.

When such cynics decide how universities and research labs will work and grants are allocated only to those whose research sounds straightforward and intuitive in a meeting, they effectively put a lid on truly creative and amazing research. Maybe it will fail spectacularly, maybe we'll get a unified theory of everything by the time it's done, we don't know. We just have to put new ideas to the test and see how they'll work. That's the nature of science.

  archived from wowt
              
# science // cynicism / scientific method / skepticism / skeptics


  show comments
latest reads

how to endanger the future of space flight for status and profit

CEOs and space faring powers are treating low Earth orbit as their personal playgrounds, much to the horror of space agencies.
how to endanger the future of space flight for status and profit

why your boss is obsessed with a.i. past the point of sanity

Not only is the C-suite not immune to AI psychosis, they seem to be primed to suffer the worst of it as their employees duck and cover.
why your boss is obsessed with a.i. past the point of sanity

why so many of us are just not that into chatbots

AI adoption is at an all time high, but opinion of AI keeps on tumbling with every poll and study on the subject.
why so many of us are just not that into chatbots

no, your chatbots aren't secretly marxists at heart

But they can and do detect and complain about unfair treatment when asked, according to an experiment by Stanford researchers.
no, your chatbots aren't secretly marxists at heart

how the right wing took over social media

Right wing content has a major advantage on social media. But we can do something about that with a very simple change in our habits.
how the right wing took over social media

no, we still don't know why t. rex had little arms

Popular science outlets continue to do a terrible job of explaining studies on primeval evolution and pretending we have answers we don't.
no, we still don't know why t. rex had little arms