Your reply clued me in into what was meant by one should reserve a degree of skepticism for skepticism. Couldn't understand what was meant from the previous argument.
I agree with the sentiment that some sane skepticism should be the default, but only as long as it's a genuinely neutral stance that is open to evaluate the arguments that support a claim. Skepticism tends to be perceived as a key quality in critical thinkers, so nowadays, everybody thinks they're a skeptic. Right? However, what is presented as skepticism, if observed under a lens, can often be traced to plain ol' denial, or dogmatism in favor of a competing hypothesis. Imo, the weakest link of the scientific method is the human element, with its various biases and motivations. Good science is still being done, but I believe that nowadays we tend to give scientists too much moral and ethical credits, despite the mounting evidence that we should be skeptical not only about their conjectures, but also their refutations.
I agree with the sentiment that some sane skepticism should be the default, but only as long as it's a genuinely neutral stance that is open to evaluate the arguments that support a claim. Skepticism tends to be perceived as a key quality in critical thinkers, so nowadays, everybody thinks they're a skeptic. Right? However, what is presented as skepticism, if observed under a lens, can often be traced to plain ol' denial, or dogmatism in favor of a competing hypothesis. Imo, the weakest link of the scientific method is the human element, with its various biases and motivations. Good science is still being done, but I believe that nowadays we tend to give scientists too much moral and ethical credits, despite the mounting evidence that we should be skeptical not only about their conjectures, but also their refutations.