The responsible inquirer standard, properly construed, requires proportioning belief to evidence, not treating uneliminated anomalies as credible candidates for supernatural explanation.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Credible candidates for supernatural explanation(as used in epistemology and philosophy of science): Situations that seem reasonable or worthy of consideration as explanations involving things beyond the natural world (like miracles or magic).
Proportioning belief to evidence(as used in epistemology): Making your confidence in something match how much evidence actually supports it—strong evidence should make you more confident, weak evidence should make you less confident.
Responsible inquirer standard(as used in epistemology (the study of knowledge)): A principle that says if you're seriously trying to figure out what's true, you should base your beliefs on actual evidence rather than just accepting explanations you like.
Uneliminated anomalies(as used in philosophy of science): Weird observations or unexplained facts that scientists haven't yet been able to account for using current explanations.

Based on where you are in your exploration