No, I understood your point the first time.  I&#x27;m saying that there&#x27;s no empirical evidence that &quot;scientific skepticism&quot; is necessary or even useful for increasing the whole of human knowledge.  If I accept your point without evidence, then by your own words I&#x27;m being anti-scientific.<p>Everything I&#x27;ve seen of Galileo leads me to believe that he was&#x27;t a scientific skeptic (the dude still had epicycles when all he had to do was pay a bit more attention to Kepler).  I&#x27;m interested in what evidence you use to believe that he was practicing any form of skepticism.