I'm the worst of both worlds. A skeptic with a healthy dose of cynicism on the side. I use the three "C"s a lot. And watch out for the fourth "C" - Complexity. Just because its complex, doesn't means its any less BS. Just because its wrapped in the superficial trappings of the scientific method, with lots of numbers to back it up, doesn't necessarily make it so.

I find it funny that people who believe in things for which there is no objective or verifiable proof, (The "I believe because I Know" argument) label skeptics as not being "open minded". Skeptics (or sceptics, The OED is clearly THE source. And I hear its going/is on-line), are fairly open minded. We just apply certain criteria to how we look at things. That criteria demands some proof, a semblance of consistency and congruency with other demonstrated facts. I liked the illustration about the Easter bunny and Easter eggs. I "know" the Easter Bunny brought my eggs, no matter what happened to the rest of the world.. What kind of criteria is that. That seems to be an underlying theme. That opinion can elevate any of the various can rise ologies, isms or pseudoscience to the status of the Theory of Special Relativity.

As I see it, reductio ad absurdum, if you provided proof, in the form of verifiable experiments, comprehensive theory and so on, that the Special Theory is wrong, then I'd accept that. If I provide the same level of proof to demonstrate that astrology (or whatever) doesn't even rise to the level of certainty of systems that pick winning lotto numbers, the likely response is "yes but..... And somehow skeptics are closed minded? Being a skeptic is a way of looking at the world, rather than a way to categorize it.

It is not the belief itself, so much as the underlying assumption that anecdotal evidence, fuzzy logic and the like, make something so. It teaches that scientific methodology is coequal with opinion-disguised-as-fact. Retreating into the "we just don't know enough yet" begs the question. The question should be, "what do we need to do to find the answers? And how?

What follows is NOT tolerant, understanding or nice. (Well for me it is), but it is an expression of a belief and concern It isn't an accusation directed at anyone.

Not to claim that one leads to the other, but IMHO, given that (fuzzy logic) standard for defining what is so, is there really a difference in kind between belief in astrology, alien abduction and other innocuous fringe beliefs, and the dark side of the fringe: eugenics, racial purity, purges and inquisitions? If we teach that anecdotal eviedence and sloppy thinking are acceptable tools for analyzing the world, the risk is real.

John