Hi Jack,
    
On that fateful 17.02.98   Jack Sargeant  took up
his heavy dictionary and grumbled: "Skeptics are sometimes wrong":
JS> > What kind of skeptics were there in the church? They were no
JS> > skeptics
JS> > but believers. If they had been skeptics, they would have tested his
JS> >
JS> > evidence, tried out his experiments with the pendulum, looked
JS> > through
JS> > his telescope to see the moons of Jupiter, the rings of saturn, they
JS> >
JS> > would have tested the evidence and made their conclusions.
JS>
JS> > They ignored the evidence, and didnīt test it. Thatīs no skepticism
JS> > but exactly the opposite.
JS>
JS>I direct you to your nearest dictionary. Don't leave home without it.
JS>
JS>1. Skeptic: One who habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees.
JS>2. Skeptic: One inclined to skepticism in philosophical or religious
JS>matters.
So let me tell you what I think a skeptic is. BTW: The Encyclopaedia 
Britannica says that it "is by no means clear what kinds of claims to 
knowledge must be admitted by everyone who is a skeptic. Consequently 
the title "Skeptic" has no agreed application and its use reveals as 
much about the person who applies it as about the person to whom it is
applied".
So if there is so much room for interpretation, I will tell you what I
think to be skeptic. Maybe I will forget some aspects, but 
nevertheless..
A skeptic in my view is a person who is convinced that it is possible 
to gain knowledge about the world we live in by rational means.
He is convinced that the best way to gain knowledge is by application 
of methods of natural science, as far as these means can be applied on
the discussed topic. 
If theories can be proven to be false, he should accept the new 
knowledge and no longer use the old theories (even if it hurts). 
But before that, the new theories or facts which contradict the old 
knowledge have to be verified and very well researched, because 
experience shows that by far most of the "new theories" flopped. 
Think about cold fusion, aura photographers, and what all else. 
Somebody who wants to believe in his theory wants to protect it 
against attacks. For him, the appearance of a skeptic will be only 
painful.
Maybe this is the problem why skeptics are not welcome in some places,
because their attitude is thought to be only destructive. But the 
sense of that destruction is to work out what resists destruction in 
the theory. If there are theories that withstand destruction, there is
a possibility that this theory shows some true aspects of the world, 
which make it scientifically valuable.
 
Aspects of the world that cannot be researched or questioned by 
rational means are no topic of a skeptical discussion. So far, 
skepticism is no method for topics like religion or philosophy. For 
instance can a skeptic discuss how big the universe is, but he cannot 
discuss why it exists.
But if there are facts to be claimed in such religious discussions that
contradict scientific knowledge or evidence, this will be a topic of 
skepicism again. The skeptic will prefer to stick to the facts rather 
than to belief. The question might again be wether this or that IS 
really a fact.
So doubting and questioning is the method of a skeptic, but not manic 
disagreeing.
So this is what I think to be a skeptic. Can we agree on that?
Till then,
Heiko
--- CrossPoint v3.11 R
---------------