To dogmatically state a fact without proof, is not the scientifically skeptical way of doing things
I agree. Please cite your evidence that black cats cause bad luck, then?
With all due respects - For the scientific methodology to work, we must first make sure that all our facts are correct, otherwise our final conclusions will be in error, based on false assumptions.
It is very easy to read something into a situation which isn't really there, or to imagine things which aren't really there, or which haven't really been said, or implied -
remirol, please tell me where I said that I had scientific proof that black cats affect one's luck.
I'm sure I said in one of the posts that I know of no definitive scientific tests on this subject.
The "generally accepted view" has no bearing on the truth or falsity of a given issue; cf. "flat earth", "sun revolves 'round the earth", or any number of previously "generally accepted views".
See also "argumentum ad populum", etc.
Excuse me for being a little skeptical, but Is there any scientific investigation that clearly shows that the 'generally accepted view' has no correlation with truth or falsity?
Could all the science that we have come to accept, be all wrong? Crikey!
You mean, because there were one or two cases in the past where the prevailing view changed, you have extrapolated this to imply that 'all' prevailing views have absolutely no bearing on the truth at all!
It feels as if there must be a logical fallacy there somewhere!
Us skeptics often state that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - and as I said in another post, it is in this context that I thought the definition of 'extraordinary' meant 'against the prevailing mindset'.
For example, if everyone believed that the earth was flat, then thinking it was round, would be defined as an extraordinary view, and thus would require extraordinary proof.
But if I now claim that the earth is really flat, this would require extraordinary proof, becaue it is against the present prevailing view.