At at Watt’s Up with That:
Traditional science required a skeptical view of one’s own findings until they could be replicated, especially by others. Unfortunately, skepticism has been deleted from the latest edition of “On Being a Scientist,” a widely-read booklet published by the National Academies of Science. When I asked the NAS about this unfortunate deletion, they explained there was insufficient space to include this fundamental aspect of doing science. Yet I counted nearly 10 pages of white space in the new edition.
Despite the NAS change, I’ll continue to view science, including mine, through a veil of skepticism. That’s why I am concerned about what has become of the global warming/climate change movement, which is rapidly assuming the status of a paradigm that is automatically assumed correct by many of those unfamiliar with the science. More.
Yes, but there is surely a bigger issue. Why has “skepticism” in general come to seem not so much healthy doubt but a perverse denial of the obvious in favor of naturalism.
See also:Forrest Mims (who should know) on Scientific American’s recent PC police swoop