Dear vitaman,

Echoing Alex, you said, "it is seldom useful to try to convince a
sceptic."

Convince a skeptic ... of what, exactly?

There are certain things which are inherently unprovable, such as matters
of faith, belief, conviction, and even political persuasion. In these
matters, the universal human trait of "confirmational bias" takes over,
for better or worse. (See Shermer's article above.)

But there are other things which are definitely objectively provable or
falsifiable, and this is where the scientific method shines.

For example, let's say Guru X begins to teach something, like, "Meditation
is a way to inner peace and joy, and if you follow my teachings on
meditation, you will enjoy these things." And you try it, and it works
for you ... wonderful! It would be inappropriate for me, a "skeptic," to
doubt your claim that following Guru X has enhanced your life in this way,
even if I tried the method myself and it didn't work for me. All I can
say is, well, "It didn't work for me," but I can't say "It doesn't work at
all," because I have to acknowledge that, assuming you're being honest, it
did work for you. In this example, if I against all reason remained an
adamant unbeliever, it makes no sense to try to convince me of your
position, and like you rightfully said, it would not be useful anyway.
At best, we can perform more detailed studies to understand why it works
for some people and not for others. At worst, we say, "To each his own,"
and hopefully remain friends.

But, now let's say Guru X adds a new teaching, like, "If you follow my
teachings, you will gain super-human abilities, such as the ability to
levitate, bend metal with your thoughts, move objects without touching
them, control the weather, walk on water, cure diseases, see and walk
through walls, read people's minds, project your thoughts into others'
minds, teleport, de-materialize and materialize objects at will, be
impervious to bullets and knives, never die, and a host of other
miraculous abilities." Well, now, these are quite extraordinary claims,
and here, I would HOPE that skepticism is REQUIRED. And, let's say you
follow Guru X's teachings, and you claim to me that you are able to
manifest some of these extraordinary abilities. So, then I ask you (with
great curiosity and interest) to demonstrate them for me. But you say,
"Oh, it's seldom useful to try to convince a skeptic," and walk away.

What am I suppose to think now? What you profess should be easily
demonstrable to even the most skeptical person's satisfaction, if your
claims are genuine. To take on faith that which can be easily settled with
objective evidence is not "open-mindedness," it is "no-mindedness." Either
stop making those claims, or demonstrate them openly for all to
appreciate. No need to build a slippery slope leading up to a tower of
mystery, and then condemn rational people for voluntarily blinding
themselves to "truth," when in fact, your tower is one of fallacy. No one
is served well by this, least of all those who diligently seek what is
good and true.

(I use the pronoun "you" in a general sense, not you personally, vitaman,
so please don't take any offense at my statements.)

Best,

HF