There is a great danger in contrasting two naturally opposed errors. If one is not careful, and if he is naturally predisposed to one of the two errors, he may become an apologist for error, perhaps unwittingly.
Yet, I will take this danger in hand, and more so, I think I will actively favor one error over the other: It is better, I think, to be credulous than incredulous. Even if just for the immediately apparent fact that one is happier when he falls for something as long as he does not fall into skepticism.
For, it seems to me, the credulous appears to be a fool while the skeptic is a fool; that is, a credulous person may indeed turn out wrong, may be a fool in one particular or another, but the skeptic is wrong wholly. He is wrong, not on a particular, though by chance he may error here too, but on the whole scheme; you see, I am quite skeptical about skepticism—I don’t believe in it.
To be skeptical, one must stand upon something, must be credulous about something else. If you tell me that scientists assure us that the Nebula Starklax is in sector five and is a hundred lightyears away, I might nod and smile and say “Sure.” I will, in fact, credit you. If, later, I find out you made a fool of me and just stated whatever words had happened to pop into your head, and in fact, you had invented Starklax on the spot, you will find me nodding and smiling once more. I will again be credulous because I have no real belief one way or another.
The only way I ever become skeptical is when I have not been skeptical, when I have believed in something else. So, if you tell me that Starklax is a hundred lightyears away, and I know that it is not (that is, believe it is not) then I will frown and shake my head.
I don’t believe in skepticism because skepticism is rooted in belief. It is better, then, for a man to be fooled than to be a fool—to believe something and find out he’s wrong than to believe nothing and find out nothing.
Tale Told 