Science requires empirical evidence supported theoretically by different and independent researchers as opposed to blind openness to ideas. The skepticism in science gives it life for it is in the confusion of unproven and unconfirmed hypotheses that science thrives. The processes employed in scientific research do not consider emotion, superstitious beliefs, or religious preferences ( Leivers, 2013) . It is skepticism of ideas and application of empirical research that eventually gives rise to scientific results after thorough analysis of model situations then of real life occurrences that eventually bring forth scientific facts and theories. Openness to ideas is the inherent pathway to meaningful scientific conclusions, provided such openness is governed by the strictness of the mind to demand conclusive empirical evidence. The collective contribution of creative and skeptical thinking provides the intricate balance that gives meaning to science.
Creativity without proof makes only for great fiction, but not science ( Van Der Zande & Popkin 2013) . However, the openness to ideas, new or otherwise without evidence is not far from science. It is in this way that great scientific hypotheses get life. With sufficient resources and manpower, augmented by richness of information and a good understanding of the idea under study, such unproven ideas may become the biggest, most influential scientific discoveries of the times ( Leivers, 2013) . It is in such openness to new ideas that scientific challenges, also borne out of curiosity, that correlations and inconsistencies are drawn to either confirm or disapprove the original assumptions. Even scientific theories are not just thought of and documented; it takes many hours and unlimited resources to come up with conclusive scientific evidence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Further, theories, whether scientific or philosophical, attract criticism, not only from the scientific community, but also from half-knowledgeable wits and otherwise outside of that specific field of knowledge. As such, no theory is perfect, and any school of thought has the opportunity to challenge and disapprove, with sufficient proof ( Medvetz, 2018) . Of course, not all ideas are great, and some very great ideas never get to the lime light. Mere skepticism is not enough, for many a great idea will be borne to become major scientific discoveries, but skeptics will choose not to recognize such reality, for their excessive skepticism will have obstructed their ability to understand.
Only uncompromising skepticism bear positivity, for many ideas are just that, until critically examined through experiment and analysis ( Leivers, 2013) . We must reward fans of skepticism though, for many others will not have the capacity for such imagination. When one’s openness lacks skepticism to the point that they cannot distinguish between a potentially promising ideas from a worthless one, choosing to accept every proffered notion, then this is proof that such an individual knows absolutely nothing ( Medvetz, 2018) . Not only are such individuals dangerous to the society, but they are a great danger to themselves. However, the one who scrutinizes ideas critically will definitely tell a good idea from a bad one, and the individual’s subsequent action determines their inherent ability to take skepticism to the next level, presenting themselves to scrutiny and praise alike.
In conclusion, skepticism, like all other arts, need to be practiced and mastered to bear productive results. Therefore, one must exercise their openness to ideas with caution not to accept ideologies that they do not understand, for even if they do, it would mean totally nothing to them. Ideally, the one who can really work around this mix of confusing concepts, open to all notions, dismissing nothing except with sufficiently backed up reason, while strictly demanding high measures of evidence, then that individual is the true light that shines tomorrow.
References
Friedman, J. P., & Jack, A. I. (2018). Mapping cognitive structure onto the landscape of philosophical debate: An empirical framework with relevance to problems of consciousness, free will, and ethics. Review of Philosophy and Psychology , 9 (1), 73-113.
Leivers, R. J. (2013). Tomorrow is yesterday: protoscience from the medieval manuscript to the golden age of science-fiction . Florida Atlantic University.
Medvetz, T. (2018). Bourdieu and the Sociology of Intellectual Life. The Oxford handbook of Pierre Bourdieu , 454.
Van Der Zande, J., & Popkin, R. H. (Eds.). (2013). The skeptical tradition around 1800: skepticism in philosophy, science, and society (Vol. 155). Springer Science & Business Media.
