Comments on: What, If Anything, Can Skeptics Say About Science?

By: Citation Needed

Citation Needed — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 14:20:41 +0000

I’d like to point out you say that a majority of Skeptics are your “Dogmatic Skeptics”. Now while your philosophical debate is fine, and I agree with some of your characterization of skeptics, the last category is not a skeptic. To call a denier a skeptic is a great injustice. Indeed, skeptics refute the claims of such people, Holocaust Deniers, AIDS deniers, and to be honest, labeling the majority of skeptics, evidence falsifying liars is not only poisoning the well, but stupid. You sir, are one of your own Dogmatic Skeptics. I’ve yet to see the skeptic publication that calls those who make up their arguments without evidence skeptics.
Prove your claims, or GTFO.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:14:02 +0000

So, reigion is a scientific endevor?

By: b Bridges

b Bridges — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:34:12 +0000

What do true skeptics do when stuff like this : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece keeps pouring in? I mean, I know what some of the most recognized names in promoting science, critical thinking, and skepticism do, they ignore or dismiss it.

Did the word “skepticism” get highjacked? How can you be a skeptic when you settle on consensus?

Very bizarre. I expect to learn of a sizable grant rolled up here in some way.

By: Skeptic of Skeptics with a captial S

Skeptic of Skeptics with a captial S — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:37:01 +0000

I think after the latest episode of Skeptics Guide, Dr. Novella has presented us with the best terms to use for those who are on either side of the climate change debate. Advocates and Dissenters. Let’s just face the fact that we are all skeptics, some outside the Skeptical movement, and some inside, some skeptics of this, and some advocates or dissenters of this or that. I stand on the outside your movement until I see pure skepticism, being NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS, BELIEF SYSTEMS, OR NO RESPECTER OF SCIENCE ITSELF, without loyalty for any ideology or belief system, and willing to call people on anything, and call BS whenever it presents itself in any form or fashion.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:46:07 +0000

Huh… he said Christianity and Scholarly in the same sentence. Weird.

By: Skeptic of Skeptics with a captial S

Skeptic of Skeptics with a captial S — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:35:13 +0000

I for one never said conspiracy. I only say elitism is at work, and so is politics and big money. Nobody needs to produce allegations and accusations or cast aspersions at anyone. All we have to do is to look at the likes of Algore and what he has gained, and where his hypocrisy is, and what is in it for the UN and other elite organizations to promote Carbon Taxes. There is no need to invoke conspiracy theory. There is no conspiracy. There is only a bunch of people that are susceptible to money interests and politics and peer pressure. You want to call it consensus and peer review. I call it peer pressure to adhere to a popularized worldview.

By: Skeptic of Skeptics with a captial S

Skeptic of Skeptics with a captial S — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:15:21 +0000

Thank you JohnL. I appreciate the compliment.

tmac57, I answer your question with a bit of SCIENCE.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

“No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New Research Finds

Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.”

It doesn’t matter what I believe. It only matters that I’m a skeptic of the word “belief.” It only matters that what I think today will change tomorrow based on better evidence.

By: Max

Max — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:58:21 +0000

Phil was in situation #3 “Where scientific domain expertise and consensus exist, but also a denier movement or pseudoscientific fringe, skeptics can finally roll up their sleeves and get to work.” For example, the Oregon Petition is the kind of thing that skeptics can pick apart better than the climate scientists.

By: NOYB

NOYB — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:18:58 +0000

Phil Plait also speaks out of his realm of expertise. He is an astronomer, not a meteorologist. His postings makes that all too clear.

By: Eternally Learning

Eternally Learning — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:39:22 +0000

I for one, do not believe that anyone should ever have to be qualified to just question anything as long as it’s done in a humble manner. The “Rookie Syndrome” obviously exists, but I think that to say those rookies had should have no right to comment, and more importantly, that they are always wrong is a very closed-minded thing to say. Only through questioning can one truly learn anything for oneself. One thing that I hold as a core world-view of mine is that no one is 100% right or wrong about everything and that everyone knows something you don’t. This is why as a lay skeptic, I don’t dismiss the arguments of IDers and such out of hand. I look into whatever the merits of their arguments may be and weigh them against the responses. Not being technical, myself, I usually end up learning more anyway. Just because someone hasn’t had the training to technically analyze a concept doesn’t mean that they might not have a useful insight or perspective into it that could even turn it on its head. I’m reminded of the tale of the semi-trailer that was too tall for an overpass and got stuck. While all the experts and professionals were busy trying to figure out how to manipulate the top of the trailer or the underside of the bridge to free the truck, a little child calmly asks why they don’t just let the air out of the tires. This is probably apocryphal, and probably manufactured to prove some ideological point, but I think that the illustration is still valid; all the expertise in the world can often focus you on one point and allow you to miss the simple answer.