-=> Quoting Jack Sargeant to David Bloomberg <=-
 JS> You have apparently abandoned the dictionary definitions of the word.
 JS> Skepticism implies closed-mindness. My dictionary defines skeptic as
 JS> follows...
 JS> 1. Skeptic: One who habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees.
 JS> 2. Skeptic: One inclined to skepticism in philosophical or religious
 JS> matters.
 JS> This directly applies to Galileo's persecutors in the Church. Once
 JS> again, you have proven your ability to gloss over, or misinterpret
 JS> the rules. ...By making up your own definitions with stupid remarks
 JS> like, "current usage of the term."
   The definition David uses is the one used by most of the organised
bodies of skepticism. So he didn't make it up. And it is current
usage.
   And there's a bit more to it than the dictionary suggests.
   If you doubt everything, what do you achieve? Dounting even your
own senses and state of mind isn't skepticism, it's solipsism or
paranoia.
   On the other hand, you can't just accept everything you're told.
That's just about as useless.
   Somewhere in between is the skeptic, who doubts things, but is
prepared to accept something as true if there is proper evidence that
it is true. Scientific, verifiable evidence.
   That is the current usage of the term.
Paul
... The sun isn't going down. The horizon is moving up.
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR]
---------------