I agree with many of you about being a skeptic, but a closed mind atrophies. I remember reading “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn in my Grad program. It’s required reading in most Grad programs no matter what the field of study. Kuhn addresses exactly what is taking place in this forum. Most people, especially the more academically educated, will be naysayers to new ideas in any body of science. Usually someone outside the scientific specialty develops an idea. All the so called experts attack it. Gradually as a new generation of scientists accept the new idea a paradigm shift takes place and it replaces the old “theories.”
This was especially true of Emanual Velikovsky’s theories about rapid change in our environment when he wrote “Ages in Chaos” back in the 1950’s. Many scientists wrote books against his theories. Today his theories are generally accepted as true. (Al Gore needs to read his books)
Much of this has to do with the methodology the scientific human brain uses to further knowledge. Logic is linear in nature and makes it dificult to think outside the box. While logic never should be abandoned, the creative aspect of the right brain should be kept open to allow for different perspectives of view. This is what made the Einsteins and the Da Vincis.
Just my two bits.
>>I agree with many of you about being a skeptic, but a closed mind atrophies<<
It depends on what you are being skeptical about.
If people are saying that research to see if the extra cost can be minimized so that hydrogen can be used as a fuel since it burns cleanly while the electricity it will cost is not so suitable for cars - they then that is too skeptical. Hydrogen research is a reasonable field and it will cost more energy than it produces but if that cost can be minimized then it may still be useful.
But, if people are being skeptical that someone is going to mechanically violate conservation of energy then that is justifiable skepticism. There is no point in wasting time or money evaluating that kind of claim.
Not so. Try Wegener's Continental Drift as an actual example. Denied even in the 50s.