Curiosity: Curiosity is defined as a need, thirst or desire for knowledge.

The term curiosity is used both as a description of a specific behavior as well as a hypothetical construct to explain the same behavior. "Curiosity often produces impulse behavior Several forms of curiosity related behavior such as search behavior, movement toward an unknown object and asking questions William James (1890) pointed out two kinds of curiosity. He emphasized the biological function of curiosity as a mechanism of instinct driven behavior that serves in approaching new objects. Approach and exploration are described as being characteristic forms of behavior. The second kind of curiosity pointed out by James is "scientific curiosity" and "metaphysical wonder" with which "the practical instinctive root has probably nothing to do" rather "the philosophical brain responds to an inconsistency or a gap in its knowledge". Blarer (1951) states that the inhibition of curiosity may result in different forms of pathological behavior, such as depression, and higher levels of sensation-seeking or thrill seeking behavior. Blarer proposed curiosity to be intrinsic to the individuals perceptions and world experiences and thus Blarer is the basis for the intrinsic motivation viewpoint in curiosity theory. Susan Edelman, Curiosity and Exploration, California State University, Northridge Official Website, available at http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/explore.htm, retrieved February 3, 2011

CURIOSITY can be defined as "an eager desire to know" or as "the desire to see or learn something that is new or unknown". Curiosity is one of the most useful qualities that man has and it has proved to be a great help to mankind. Curiosity is an intellectual element that distinguishes man from animal. Truly, curiosity is one of the greatest gifts with which God has equipped our minds.

But you have to remember that what we have mentioned is curiosity in the best sense of the term. Like all other instincts and qualities, its use can be wise or foolish or even harmful. There are different kinds of curiosity, bad as well as good. That is why it has also been defined in a bad sense as inquisitiveness. In a bad sense inquisitive means too eager to know about other peoples affairs that are not your own business. It is because of this kind of curiosity that you often hear someone say : Mind your own business. There is yet another kind of curiosity that needs to be guarded againts, because, if not properly controlled, it might become a weakness rather than an advantage.

You had better not be curious about things that can do you harm. For instance, many youths have become alcoholic addicts simply because of curiosity about what it is like to be drunk. If drinking becomes a habit or an addiction, it is very difficult for you to get rid of it. Truly, curiosity is one of the greatest gifts with which God has equipped our minds. But it has to be wisely controlled. You have to realize what kind of curiosity you have in mind. Is it a curiosity that leads you to an understanding of certain knowledge that will be useful to you or for the benefit of mankind ? Is it a curiosity directed towards religious questions that will lead you to a realization of the greatness of God ?

Tiusto, What is The Meaning of "Curiosity?, Authspot, available at http://authspot.com/thoughts/what-is-themeaning-of-curiosity/, retrieved February 3, 2011

If you love someone, you automatically develop a voracious appetite for information about that person. When someone you are not attracted to talks a lot about his or her own life, you get bored to death. When someone you are attracted to talks a lot, you might find that person to be full of life, and fascinating. Attraction and curiosity are inseparable. A good book conspicuously manipulates your curiosity. The writer develops a character that you are attracted to, and then creates a series of situations in which it is not obvious how things will turn out. Curiosity is rarely faked simply because people aren't generally aware that it is such a reliable indicator of attraction. Once you learn to recognize the connection between attraction and curiosity - The Administrator, Curiosity, The Scott Adams Blog,, available at http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/curiosity/, retrieved January 28, 2011

Curiosity (from Latin curiosus "careful, diligent, curious," akin to cura "care") is an emotion related to natural inquisitive behavior such as exploration, investigation, and learning, evident by observation in human and many animal species. The term can also be used to denote the behavior itself being caused by the emotion of curiosity. As this emotion represents a drive to know new things, curiosity is the fuel of science and all other disciplines of human study.

Although many living beings have an innate capability of curiosity, it should not be categorized as an instinct because it is not a fixed action pattern; rather it is an innate basic emotion because while curiosity can be expressed in many ways, the expression of an instinct is typically more fixed and less flexible. Curiosity is common to human beings at all ages from infancy to old age, and is easy to observe in many other animal species. These include apes, cats, fish, reptiles, and insects; as well as many others.[citation needed] Many aspects of exploration are shared among all beings, as all known terrestrial beings share similar aspects: limited size and a need to seek out food sources. In fact, in its development as wonder or admiration, it is generally curiosity that makes a human being want to become an expert in a field of knowledge.[citation needed] Though humans are sometimes considered particularly curious, they sometimes seem to miss the obvious when compared to other animals. What seems to happen is that human curiosity about curiosity itself (i.e. meta-curiosity or meta-interest), combined with the ability to think in an abstract way, lead to mimesis, fantasy and imagination - eventually leading to an especially human way of thinking ("human reason"), which is abstract and self-aware, or conscious. Readers of this page who are curious about meta-curiosity are experiencing meta-meta-curiosity. The Administrator, Curiosity, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity, retrieved January 28, 2011

Curiosity is an important trait of a genius. I dont think you can find an intellectual giant who is not a curious person. Thomas Edison, Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, they are all curious characters. Richard Feynman was especially known for his adventures which came from his curiosity. But why is curiosity so important? Here are four reasons: 1. It makes your mind active instead of passive Curious people always ask questions and search for answers in their minds. Their minds are always active. Since the mind is like a muscle which becomes stronger through continual exercise, the mental exercise caused by curiosity makes your mind stronger and stronger. 2. It makes your mind observant of new ideas When you are curious about something, your mind expects and anticipates new ideas related to it. When the ideas come they will soon be recognized. Without curiosity, the ideas may pass right in front of you and yet you miss them because your mind is not prepared to recognize them. Just think, how many great ideas may have lost due to lack of curiosity? 3. It opens up new worlds and possibilities By being curious you will be able to see new worlds and possibilities which are normally not visible. They are hidden behind the surface of normal life, and it takes a curious mind to look beneath the surface and discover these new worlds and possibilities. 4. It brings excitement into your life The life of curious people is far from boring. Its neither dull nor routine. There are

always new things that attract their attention, there are always new toys to play with. Instead of being bored, curious people have an adventurous life.
Be open to learn, unlearn, and relearn. Some things you know and believe might be wrong, and you should be prepared to accept this possibility and change your mind. Donald Latumahina, 4 Reasons Why Curiosity is Important and How to Develop It, Stepcase Lifehack, available at http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/4-reasons-why-curiosity-isimportant-and-how-to-develop-it.html, retrieved January 28, 2011 Dr. Smutny also stated, A sense of conscious worth satisfies the hungry heart like nothing else can. eligious skepticism is doubting, or holding-out for evidence, regarding faith-based claims. Historically, religious skepticism can be traced back to Socrates, who doubted many religious claims of the time. Modern religious skepticism typically places more emphasis on scientific and historical methods than pure doubt, with Michael Shermer writing that it is a process for discovering the truth rather than blanket non-acceptance. For this reason, a skeptic will likely believe in Jesus and Herod (who can be historically attested to) but not that Herod tried to kill Jesus via the slaughter of the innocents (which has no evidence outside the bible). Religious skepticism is not the same as atheism or agnosticism. Religious people are generally skeptical to the claims of other religions, and some are skeptical towards the claims of organised religious institutions, such as faith healing or modern miracles Wikipedia; the Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism ,

Intuition: n Plato's Apology of Socrates, Socrates claimed to have a daimonion (literally, a "divine something")[10] that frequently warned him - in the form of a "voice" - against mistakes but never told him what to do.[11] However, the Platonic Socrates never refers to the daimonion as a daimn; it was always an impersonal "something" or "sign".

erhaps the most interesting facet of this is Socrates' reliance on what the Greeks called his "daemonic sign", an averting ( apotreptikos) inner voice Socrates heard only when he was about to make a mistake. It was this sign that prevented Socrates from entering into politics. In the Phaedrus, we are told Socrates considered this to be a form of "divine madness", the sort of insanity that is a gift from the gods and gives us poetry, mysticism, love, and even philosophy itself. Alternately, the sign is often taken to be what we would call "intuition"; however, Socrates' characterization of the phenomenon as "daemonic" suggests its origin is divine, mysterious, and independent of his own thoughts.
Socrates believed the best way for people to live was to focus on self-development rather than the pursuit of material wealth.[c

One of the best known sayings of Socrates is "I only know that I know nothing". except the right to know that he has no right; a man of Contemplation has no right at all.

Al-Ghazzali and Skepticism: Al-Ghazali, of course, passed through a turbulent period of skepticism, but he was really in search of certainty, which he found not in discursive knowledge but in mystic experience. In his favour it must be said that he paved the way for liberating the believer from blind imitation and helping him approach the goal of certain knowledge. Knowledge is considered to be derived from two sources: 'aql and 'ilm huduri (in the sense of unmediated and direct knowledge acquired through mystic experience). Skepticism is a philosophy that has three different meanings: denial of all knowledge, agnosticism, and a method to approach certainty. Most of the Muslims philosophers sought the goal of certainty. Skepticism in the general sense of the impossibility of knowledge is not compatible with Islamic teachings. It is acceptable only when it leads from uncertainty to certainty. The skeptical method has two aspects, rejection of all absolute knowledge, and acceptance of the path to overcome uncertainty. Muslim philosophers have followed the second path, because there has been an emphasis on rejecting blind faith. - Dr. Sayyid Wahid Akhtar, Al-Tawhid: The Islamic Concept of Knowledge, Al-Islam.Org Vol XII No. 3

If you are curious, you will wish to find out how the world works. That means that you will question how others think it works, and that is what it means to be skeptical. Curiosity entails skepticism.

This is true, and although they have overlap, there are still differences. What are those differences, if you see any? You might say that the skepticism is more goal oriented than curiosity. Skepticism seeks to connect and keep systems consistent, by testing the integrity of its components in isolation and in conjunction with one another. Curiosity, on the other hand, is more focused with learning and understanding. The focus is not so much on the integrity of the product, but on the process.

The Administrator, Drive Wars: Curiosity vs. Skepticism, INTPcentral, available at http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?24936-Drive-Wars-Curiosity-vs.-Skepticism, retrieved January 29, 2011

Science is merely the refinement of everyday thinking. Albert Einstein Academic and Intelligent are very far from matching compliments. Frank McLynn To reason, one must wonder. Skepticism is perhaps one of the best and most rudimentary spirits in mankind. Without it we cannot search; without it we cannot reason; without it we cannot wonder; we cannot inquire; we cannot contemplate. Without it we are not intelligent. We are a stray and hungry dog, and we will eat anything fed us. Skepticism is a two edged sword, both sides sharp, as pure as blue steel and just as clean. One side does not allow us to believe everything off hand; the other does not let us necessarily dismiss anything off hand. Skepticism is, in a way, the mediating influence upon curiosity which guides it toward wisdom. Curiosity has made us to inquire; and inquiring we have amassed an enormous catalogue of causes and effects; of species of plants and life. This is knowledge. This is the bedrock of scientific reference. In Latin Scientia merely means To Know. Ideally, before a scientist can contribute to the world of knowledge, he must first learn all that has been compiled before him; what others have observed and cross referenced, many times back thousands of years. I stand on the shoulder of giants, said Newton. This is the world of a priori, which means the system of cross-referencing by accumulated knowledge. When you approach a zoologist with a report of a creature that has feathers, a bill, waddles on webbed feet and goes quack, quack there is an a priori reason for that zoologist to say Its a duck. He doesnt have to go and observe it himself and waste time because there is an appropriate cross reference for such a phenomenon. Its a duck! When you approach a zoologist and say I saw something with scales, that was pink, has 5 legs and a bill like a bird but a tail like a fish. You are not going to get a good reply because there is an a priori reason for him to say there is not such creature. There is no catalogue for such an animal as you described. Now, go see your doctor or get off the gin. When a zoologist gets more reports of this type of creature from several people a world away, he begins to ponder if something new is not being discovered. Though he is skeptical, he

begins to probe into it. Skepticism, you see, is involved in everything that has to do with discovery, with inquiry and with intelligence. Now, I doubt there will ever be any such creature as used in the above analogy. But there are still many things happening in this world for which we do not have as yet any appropriate cross reference. The complete disappearance of ships and planes in the so called Bermuda Triangle may be one, as well as stories about strange atmospheric phenomena and electromagnetic anomalies as reported by some pilots and ship captains that survived. There is no a priori reason to dismiss the latter, since they are not speaking of things so completely unknown. The shape, mass, rotation, inclination and revolution of the earth play vital roles in some places of the globe as opposed to others. Because of this we know why hurricanes and typhoons strike along the same latitudes, why great winds frequent certain areas as opposed to others, and geology has taught us why earthquakes appear in some areas and do not in others. The invisible forces of our earth may be subject and influenced in the same ways. The magnetic field is known to be effected by any number of events. It seems equally possible there are regions of the earth, again for a variety of reasons, which are more prone to these, as some regions are prone to visible catastrophes like typhoons and tornadoes. One must approach the Bermuda Triangle and these possibilities with the curiosity of skepticism. This is not an oxymoron. Skepticism set in motion is an integral part of curiosity! But Im afraid the world and the world wide web are not always like this. There are those whose minds are so open their brains have fallen out; then there are those whose minds are so closed, their brains have suffocated. They are no better than a bowling ball in mud. As a true skeptic, I have taken criticism from both sides: those who want me to believe and endorse the most fantastic claims at face value and those gentlemen of the-bowling-ball-inmud-club who go no where and think all has been discovered. There are groups who have gone to Bimini Island in a chartered boat and held rituals over the Bimini stones believing there is some stronger cosmic force here. They roll out stone and quartz phalli like dice and read the results. . . .Hmmm. I wont go on. Possibly, the debunker is just as bad. What is truly sad is that they promote themselves to be the skeptic and promote themselves as the voices of science. They dont even know what the word means. I consider most of them little better than hucksters who saw a good way to get attention and make money by being devils advocate to a popular subject. They stifle inquiry and make fun of those who inquire. What is amazing is that debunkers are the primary source for most of the sensational claims made on behalf of the Triangle. They do this by taking out of context what other authors wrote, by making it look like there was a dogmatic assertion that some supernatural event

occurred, and then they solve it by picking apart what they essentially created. An example comes from one noted debunker: I had originally gotten hold of accounts by previous writers, threw them all together, and put a few transition sentences between them . . . The quilt that emerged was truly not reflective of any one particular authors thesis on the subject. Their books had mediating influences that debunkers distill from their accounts. There were many mistakes made by the sensationalists; thats true. I have not, however, found a higher degree of accuracy amongst the debunkers in their neat solutions to everything. But they always say their mistakes are never intentional. This may be true. What is indigestible is that they often claim the sensationalists made intentional mistakes for commercialism to subvert the truth. There are no more mistakes in Charles Berlitzs book, The Bermuda Triangle than there are in Larry Kusches book The Bermuda Triangle Mystery Solved. Berlitz had inaccurate information upon which he based aspects of the theories. So did Larry Kusche for his solution. I condemn neither. Berlitz dealt very little with the incidents. His was more of a theories book. Kusche dealt little with theory. His was more devoted to incidents. I believe, however, that Berlitzs mistakes were far more innocent that Kusches. When Larry Kusche thought it time to publish his book, he deferred to a large number of old newspaper accounts which he took uncritically as accurate information. I found I couldnt trust anything anybody else had written on the topic, because it was very flimsy. This is hypocritical, to say the least. Larry Kusche, in his position as a librarian, was actually the source for some of the greatest sensationalism. His Bermuda Triangle Bibliography, which he uncritically compiled at Arizona State University as source work for any inquirer, was the springboard for a number of writers. Charles Berlitz praised him in the introduction to his own bibliography. Before mention of some of the books referred to in this present work, the author would like to recommend to the readers attention the Bermuda Triangle Bibliography compiled by Larry Kusche and Deborah Blouin, Arizona State University Library, April 1973, which contains numerous references, including books and newspaper and magazine articles, pertaining to the Bermuda Triangle. Kusche later admitted how he pitched his own book . . .we were swamped with requests, including orders from John Wallace Spencer, Richard Winer and Charles Berlitz. Harper and Row also ordered one, and I sent a note along, telling them I was writing a book. They offered me a contract based on two sample chapters. Kusche, however, did not use his own Bermuda Triangle Bibliography as the source for his own book, the source which had so impressed the other authors who tracked down its references and used them as sources for their books and lectures. Kusche instead used different newspaper accounts which he accepted uncritically as unchallenged fact. His solution was the result of these. Instead of updating his Bibliography, he seems to have pitched a book deal.

After Kusches book came out, with starkly different source material cited, and even condemning others for inaccuracy, Berlitz had his above praise omitted from later editions of his book, and made no reference to Kusches uncritical Bibliography. Kusche received the praise as the number one expert on the Bermuda Triangle while Berlitz, Spencer and Winer were taking hits for sensationalism and inaccuracy thanks in part to Kusches Bermuda Triangle Bibliography. (These sensationalists had inquired at University level for information. I think that says something on their behalf.) In an interview after his own publication, Kusche said Theres a whole subculture of pseudo-scientific mystery writers who have been pumping out this kind of material on ancient astronauts, UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, and other topics for many years, without opposition of any kind. I plan to bring my bulldozer in and show that their buildings arent concrete, but just bubbles and baubles piled high and deep. Kusches bulldozer, like all bulldozers, moved dirt around easy enough but stymied and choked at concrete, leaving many to feel that his book was better entitled Bermuda Triangle Mystery Examined rather than Solved. (Which would have been an excellent title because Kusches book has some worthwhile material in it as well.) But Kusches bulldozer never moved a wealth of official documentation into public view. In fact, his purpose seemed to document and question public discourse on the Bermuda Triangle, not to document the Bermuda Triangle itself. This seems probable considering the amount of information available at his time that he overlooked. Searches of Civil Aeronautic Board records would have cued him into about 30 aircraft disappearances that had never been reported between 1964 and 1974. But because this would not be solving the Triangle but documenting it (indeed above and beyond the litany any other contemporary writer provided), we dont see his meticulous research extending toward this aspect. Kusches book turned out to be a paltry collection of only 57 incidents based on old newspaper accounts. Some were well known, others mediocre, some completely obscure that he could not find any newspaper accounts for. His meticulous research managed to obtain only about 6 accident reports. None solved the incident in question. Although he claimed he did not start out to solve the Triangle, some of the ludicrous statements he unashamedly resorted to belie this. In regards the disappearance of the U.S.S. Cyclops he even went so far as to write. I confidently decided that the newspapers, the Navy, and all the ships at sea had been wrong, and that there had been a storm near Norfolk that day strong enough to sink the ship. On top of this, he writes: Contrary to popular opinion, there never was an official inquiry into the disappearance . . .Had there been any investigation, the weather information would surely have been discovered. Three boxes (1068-1070) at the National Archives are composed of 1,500 papers on the official investigation into the disappearance of the Cyclops. There was no storm. Weather charts are in the information, testimonials, research, FBI investigations (when still called Bureau of Investigation). All the ships at sea, the Navy, and the newspapers had not been

wrong. (Kusche even produced shadowy information from the Weather Bureau that proved storm.) Kusche completely avoided, in his long recount and solution, that the vessel was due at Baltimore on March 13. Instead, he builds his case of storm for March 10, and places the vessel at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. This position would be a day or less from Baltimore. Thus, though he insists the engines were compounded and the vessel was making slower speeds, he places the Cyclops ahead of its ETA by 2 full days! But this position fits the rumors that a diver found a strange looking ship on the bottom here in 1968. This divers fanciful description fits the Cyclops. Hawes was stunned by the strange design of the ship, reports Kusche, Its bridge was high above the ship, supported by steel stilts. Upright beams like the skeleton of a skyscraper ran almost its entire length. Well, this fanciful description was not made up by Kusche, but I have found that he did have a hard time challenging patently impossible remembrances, especially if they contradict a simple solution, as his later work of misinformation The Disappearance of Flight 19 proved. At 180 feet below the surface a diver is not going to be able to get such a good view of a ship as to describe it as such. If he spends enough time to do so he would easily have found its name. Also, I think most people are familiar now with the work of Dr. Bob Ballard. His research into such vessels as Titanic, Bismark, and the fleet of vessels of Savo Island, have consistently shown that the more superficial parts of the superstructures are swept away by the vessels roll under water when plunging to the bottom. This would include a bridge on stilts and the tall but thin derricks for loading coal on the Cyclops, which the diver Hawes claims to have seen picturesquely intact. Kusches selectivity was remarkable in other cases. He accepted storms or bad weather unconditionally where a newspaper account has them listed. Where a vessel disappeared in good weather, he sought to quibble and find bad weather. I dont consider this skeptical inquiry. The surfer of this web site will hopefully get a better feel for what skepticism is. I try to list as much factual information as possible regardless of how unpopular it might be to some. Hopefully, the surfer will at least learn the difference between a skeptic, an eager believer, and a debunker. I hope all become skeptics, skeptics of many things. Without it, your curiosity becomes selfdeception. Probe and study with skepticism but also with intelligence. Scientific Method is often painted as some dull routine that haunts a laboratory. In fact, 9 of the skills of the Method are used by all people everyday. These, the 10 Process Skills of Scientific Inquiry which comprise Scientific Method, are: Observe; Classify; Infer; Interpret; Measure; Predict; Questions; Hypotheses, Experiment;

Model Building. Today, the academic and scientific world is made up of true skeptics, befitting their scientific training and discipline. They discuss such things as inter dimensional physics, supersting, wormhole, hyperspace, light and heats travel on magnetism and any number of other theories in physics. As John Napier of the Smithsonian once observed: Scientists are naturally gossipy people. They will tell all they know and allot they dont know at the drop of a chairmans gavel. The opposite end of such an attitude might be found in debunkers who ridicule such curiosity and optimism, public inquiry and debate. Most people Ive talked to thought they were doing creative thinking (stretching their minds is the current clich), but all I ever heard was a regurgitation of one liners from Berlitz, von Daniken, and the rest of the gang, said Kusche. Nevertheless, science has had far more esoteric debates and discussions that have yielded more than mind stretching, as can be seen in the work of John Hutchison and his Hutchison Effect, the search for new forms of energy; and Dr. Hans Grabber in his pioneering work in deciphering anomalies of the sea and rogue waves; and several astrophysicists regarding the relationship of Time to Gravity, the Event Horizon and black holes. Such things would no doubt have been condemned 25 years ago as paranormal pursuits or as heresy, as Relative Physics was by Classic Physics. The sea is a vast world outside our daily endeavour. Many cannot imagine it is a different world. It continues to hold its mysteries into the 21st century, and will no doubt hold many into the 22nd. Though the greatest part of this planet, it is but a small token of its elements and of the potential interplay of power beyond our ability to consider. Those who have traveled it more than the rest of us have come out with strange tales of unexplained forces, if you will. They have never attributed them to any supernatural phenomena. Despite this, the Bermuda Triangle is reputed to be some metaphysical place, and anything odd and unusual reported in it to be supernatural by debunkers. They are, basically, the only ones who have promoted this. I am going to be updating my Those who lived to Tell section in the near future. The surfer will be able to decide for themselves on the stories. Doubtless, I will have to take criticism for merely placing them on the web. But the two first process skills are Observe and Classify. The rest cant even be done without this. - The Administrator, Bermuda-Triangle.Org, available at http://www.bermudatriangle.org/html/skepticism___the_triangle.html retrieved