> Pseudoscientific beliefs are frequently irrational (e.g., believing in the existence of the Loch Ness monster)
Not so long ago the belief that rocks can fall from the sky was regarded as irrational and magical. Then meteorites were theorized, observed and predicted. In short, one should reserve a degree of skepticism for skepticism.
(EDIT: immediately followed by (in link provided):
Whether Jefferson's quote is truth or myth, his belief real or an opportunity for a witty Virginian to take a shot at a two Yankees, is not known
which undermines somewhat the claim that Jefferson held such a belief.)
Leaves the question of whether that was a widespread belief.
TBH it's the first I'd heard that anyone had ever not believed in rocks falling from the sky .. I'm 60 ish, have worked for decades in geophysics and read the original Scottish geologists, etc.
Appears in the bible, so I suspect you'd have gotten in trouble for mocking the idea too loudly:
> And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.
It's hard to not believe in meteorites when your environment is desert or snowfields .. micro meteorites are a steady infall and people with sharp eye notice small black rocks appearing on previously clean sand and snow.
( If your routinely clean your gutters and pick through the silt with a strong magnet you'll likely find micro meteorites sooner or later )
The Global Fireball Observatory is an multi-institutional collaboration, with partner networks around the world. Our observatories take pictures of fireballs so we can recover any meteorites that might have landed on the ground.
> Until the early 19th century, most scientists shared Isaac Newton's view that no small objects could exist in the interplanetary space - an assumption leaving no room for stones falling from the sky.
And...
>... From this, he [Ernst Florens Chladni] was forced to conclude that meteorites were actually responsible for the phenomena known as fireballs, and, more importantly, that they must have their origins in outer space. His view received immediate resistance and mockery by the scientific community.
You are just encouraging fake news. Please don't ask people to substantiate anecdotes. It's better to just accept the narrative if it fits the consensus.
This obsession with "proof" and "data" is anti scientific.
>In short, one should reserve a degree of skepticism for skepticism.
Why though? In what way does it benefit me or society to give everyone with a theory attention? Yes, some percentage of the time these theories are true, but I feel they are lost in the noise of every other false claim.
If your belief is true, prove it, but if you can't, why should I care? In my opinion, skepticism should be the default.
Your reply clued me in into what was meant by one should reserve a degree of skepticism for skepticism. Couldn't understand what was meant from the previous argument.
I agree with the sentiment that some sane skepticism should be the default, but only as long as it's a genuinely neutral stance that is open to evaluate the arguments that support a claim. Skepticism tends to be perceived as a key quality in critical thinkers, so nowadays, everybody thinks they're a skeptic. Right? However, what is presented as skepticism, if observed under a lens, can often be traced to plain ol' denial, or dogmatism in favor of a competing hypothesis. Imo, the weakest link of the scientific method is the human element, with its various biases and motivations. Good science is still being done, but I believe that nowadays we tend to give scientists too much moral and ethical credits, despite the mounting evidence that we should be skeptical not only about their conjectures, but also their refutations.
I agree that any claim should be supported by proof or at least evidence, especially if it is a novel claim. Furthermore, the responsibility for doing so falls upon the 'claimee'.
I will also observe that default skepticism can easily become entrenched skepticism. An example: in 1867 the youngish James Clerk Maxwell presented the theory of radio waves to the esteemed old men of the Royal Society. They dismissed his idea, claiming it to be a form of induction, despite being presented fairy strong theoretical and practical evidence to the contrary.
To quote Arthur C Clarke: "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
Or to quote Shakespeare: "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Yeh that sentence is a bit of a mess. All I am saying is that time and again superstitions have been proven to be facts, myths have been shown be be historic events etc.
Or to quote Shakespeare: 'There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy'.
the existence of the Loch Ness monster can be ruled out by simply surveying the lake. There is a differences between things that can be falsified and those that cannot.
> Pseudoscientific beliefs are frequently irrational (e.g., believing in the existence of the Loch Ness monster)
Not so long ago the belief that rocks can fall from the sky was regarded as irrational and magical. Then meteorites were theorized, observed and predicted. In short, one should reserve a degree of skepticism for skepticism.