Difference between revisions of "Scientific skepticism"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
*"The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results." [http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm] | *"The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results." [http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Category:Science]] | [[Category:Science]] | ||
[[Category:Philosophy]] | [[Category:Philosophy]] | ||
Revision as of 15:54, March 23, 2008
The National Academy of Science says,
- "The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results." [1]