Skepticism. It's how the human race keeps learning things.

Skepticism has a bad reputation. We skeptics are often looked at as the evil naysayers that are unwilling to accept anything that isn't written in a science book.

A skeptic is someone who withholds judgement until all data is in. This doesn't just apply to aliens, Big Foot, and the Loch Ness Monster. This applies to everything. We're the people that also want proof for things like cold fusion and string theory. This isn't a bad thing. This is a good thing. It's this questioning nature that allows us to expand our vast pool of knowledge.

Did you know that the circumference of the earth was measured in about 240BC? By the 1st century AD, it was well accepted that the earth is round. What about the notion that people of Columbus' time were afraid that he would fall off the edge of the Earth? This was an idea create by Washington Irving in 1828. Don't take my word for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

Isaac Newton gave us equations to measure gravity. He was wrong. What about Albert Einstein? Well, he was wrong too. According to his equations, the galaxies require significantly more mass to behave as they do. As a result, we have theories of dark matter and dark energy. They are called "dark" because we can't see them. Until we have a definitive reason for replacing general relativity, this is the best we can do: assume there is stuff out there we can't see. While we may very well be fascinated with the notion, a skeptic doesn't particularly like this method of assuming something is out there just because the numbers say so (Einstein also theorized white holes in addition to black holes). Until reason is given to believe otherwise, "Dark Matter" goes in the crazy theory list--right along with String Theory.

Okay, so relativity is an approximation, though significantly more accurate than Newtonian gravity. What about string theory? It's a theoretical mathematical model of the universe that is so far out there that it makes no predictions and therefore can't really be disproved. This is like the idea of trying to prove that yesterday really happened--that we weren't all created fifteen minutes ago with memories of yesterday and a world around us that looks like it was here yesterday. Okay. I can't prove yesterday really happened. The best I can do is assume it did and assume that I'm going to be held responsible for what I remember doing yesterday. The theory of yesterday is a plausible theory, but it's completely useless. It makes no predictions. It doesn't enlighten us to any new knowledge we didn't already have. The theory doesn't help us with what to do tomorrow.

So what do we actually know? Well, technically nothing. But that's more of a philosophical debate than a discussion of skepticism. ;)

Quantum Electrodynamics (i.e. QED): Quantum theory as we know it hasn't changed a bit since 1932. Every time we create better testing equipment, we see that we were right in 1932. Okay, this is a little misleading. We've learned a lot since 1932. However, we have yet to find one shred of evidence to imply that the fundamental method of calculating probabilities is incorrect.


There is another theory that also has such an abundance of evidence. Despite its unpopularity in some circles, it's the foundation of a very large and important division of science. In fact, it's the reason people get flu shots every year. It's the reason you are supposed to take ALL of the antibiotics prescribed to you. It's the reason incredibly strong antibiotics don't work any more. It's the reason there are so many breeds of dogs. This theory has been around longer than QED, and yet no one has found any sound evidence to disprove it. Like all scientific theories, it only takes one piece of evidence.

A T-Rex with a human in its mouth would be enough to disprove evolution.


But don't take my word for it.