3 ms·
Calling skeptics as "denialists" is a rejection of scientific discourse. The skeptic could reasonably be defined as someone who doubts a proposition and gives r
by jacinabox 6y ago
Calling skeptics as "denialists" is a rejection of scientific discourse. The skeptic could reasonably be defined as someone who doubts a proposition and gives reasons for doubting it: if truth is given as a condition of skepticism, it preempts the frame of discussion in which truths are settled, and makes discourse into a game of who can define the other out of existence more effectively.
- jfengel 6y agoThat definition is incomplete without a provision for "... and will change their mind when presented with sufficient evidence for the proposition". That is, the skepticism has to go both ways. Merely being attached to doubting the proposition is exactly denialism and exactly not skepticism. More or less by definition it's impossible for a denialist to tell that they're not being skeptical, because they can move the goalposts on "sufficient evidence" indefinitely. This is a deep epistemological conundrum with no easy answer. But as a rule of thumb, skeptics generally include the "both ways" aspects in their definition of skepticism, while denialists focus solely on justifying their doubt.