There is nothing rational about throwing unresearched medications at unknown pathogens. Stupid idea..
Maybe it's stupid, but most of medicals was revealed and tested just by such silly empirical way. After all, every medication was unresearched in its very beginning - the penicillin and aspirin is no exception.
Try to imagine, you're dying by unknown disease. Somebody is saying, the aspirin MAY be the right cure. Moreore, we know, such cure was never tested seriously. So it still MAY be possible, just the aspirine is the right medicine for you.
Will you try it or not? If not - why? Is such stance rational?
By many evolutionary psychologists the belief is highly rational stance in many situations. The obstinate disbelievers were always eaten by crocodilles first, so that some selection has taken place and mankind is highly religious by its very nature.
In adition, Aether Wave Theory explains, how the unsubstantiated disbelief into new concept becomes pathological and in its consequence leads into introduction of new level of belief due emergence of many negative stances. Every rational stance becomes biased or even counterproductive in less or larger scope. It demonstrates, how the rational approach of mainstream science can become a brake of further evolution or even worse: how starchy positivism brings a new level of naive postmodern speculations into science.
After then, rational disbelief in some theory simply becomes irrational disbelief in its negation. It doesn't matter, if you believe in God, or you're believe, God doesn't exist. Unsubstantiated stance is always a belief - no matter how we're calling it. The neutral people are called a agnostics, not atheists. This is because of symmetry of Popper methodology: every negation of some theory becomes a new theory, which should be validated and tested with the same caution, like the original theory. Therefore unsubstantiated disbelief cannot become a relevant clue for further research.
Characteristics of Pathological skepticism
:1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks
6. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
7. Pejorative labeling of proponents as "promoters", "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science."
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
12. Tendency to dismiss all evidence
13. Organized skepticism tends to be automatically pathological
Where is the exact boundary between "healthy skepticism" and "unhealthy ignorance", after then?