Thank you for the spelling correction, Tina.
But naomi, when, with a particular subject, you run out of things to investigate then that, surely, is the end of it unless and until brand-new evidence comes along.
If you haven�t run out then there are still things to pursue, so you get on with it. To say �Well, all available evidence has come to nought but we�d still better take it seriously� makes no sense. And with some subjects (like my 18-foot man and God) there is nothing to investigate in the first place.
In defining a sceptic I would prefer �One who challenges present doctrines�. If they withstand scrutiny then a sceptic accepts them as willingly as everyone else does. But without that challenge all manner of irrational beliefs would prevail. This is where publications like The Skeptics Dictionary come into their own.
TSD and its associated monthly magazine, The Skeptic, investigate claimed unusual phenomena with that objectivity and that absence of bias, prejudice and preconceptions that make their work so well-respected. In the process they often solve genuine mysteries or, more often than not, show that there was no mystery in the first place, merely supposition or superstition.
Alas, there are many people, who reject such rationality; they don�t like their illusions to be shattered; they prefer the warm romance of mystery to the cold facts of the solution. Here�s a comparison between the two mind-sets:
(Continued)