4 ms·

skepticism is now wrongthink. either you believe what you're told (even if it contradicts what you were told yesterday), or you're a "conspiracy theorist." heal

skepticism is now wrongthink. either you believe what you're told (even if it contradicts what you were told yesterday), or you're a "conspiracy theorist." healthy skepticism is no longer considered a virtue in popular culture, it's either join the consensus or shut the fuck up. pretty sad state of affairs.

ptkd 5y ago
I mean on some level i agree with you, but since skepticism about climate change is likely leading to a massive humanitarian crisis it’s pretty reasonable for people to be angry at those who say “well actually according to MY research…” when there is such an overwhelming body of evidence pointing to disastrous climate change consequences.
namuol 5y ago
You're exaggerating. Skepticism is is a multi dimensional spectrum. Certain flavors of "skepticism" have been abused and, well, society has shifted its trust accordingly.
shkkmo 5y ago
Don't confuse intellectual contrarianism with true skepticism. a lot of people claiming to be engaged in the later are really just adherents to the former. A true skeptic applies that skepticism as equally to their own beliefs and to frings beliefs as they do to popular or widely accepted beliefs.
- adamrezich 5y ago
  is there any difference between "intellectual contrarianism" and "true skepticism" aside from whether or not you agree with the conclusions being reached (or perhaps the questions being asked)?
  - jfengel 5y ago
    The difference is intellectual honesty. If you're truly willing to consider the evidence, and not just seek out things to reinforce your pre-existing conclusion, then you can be skeptical. Otherwise you're just contrarian. The problem is that if somebody is dishonest, there's no way to convince them that they're being dishonest. Either they know it, and refuse to admit it, or they're so dishonest that they've completely lost track of what it means to objectively evaluate evidence. So it's the kind of thing that experts in the domain will all be able to discern, while those same experts will be thought of as conspirators by the contrarian (and reinforced by their equally non-expert circle of trusted acquaintances). About the only hope you have at that point is noticing when the conspiracy is so large that it's simply not reasonable to expect it to persist. But since they get reinforcement from their large circle of non-experts, they usually conclude that the same logic applies both ways.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    Yes, absolutely. I already explained what that difference is but let me go further since you didn't understand: If you only apply your skepticism to polular narratives but not to your pet theories, then you are not truely a skeptic. It doesn't matter what you believe, it just matters that you approach what you believe with an equal or higher level of skepticism than you approach what others believe.
    - adamrezich 5y ago
      I see, and I agree completely!
titzer 5y ago
I, too, am skeptical that the sky is blue, space is black, and that the planets orbit the sun. I mean, I haven't directly observed space or the planets, so the scientific approach is to be skeptical. I also hold out some tiny hope that electrons aren't real and microprocessors are powered by multi-dimensional hamsters. It is denialism--really, it's willful, militant ignorance--at this point to go against the consensus on climate change. It's just being obtuse. All I can say is, buckle the F up, because the effects of climate change are compounding year by year and decade by decade. I am so confident in this, after reading tons on the subject, having been all over the world and seen it, that I'll just leave it there.

ptkd 5y ago

I mean on some level i agree with you, but since skepticism about climate change is likely leading to a massive humanitarian crisis it’s pretty reasonable for people to be angry at those who say “well actually according to MY research…” when there is such an overwhelming body of evidence pointing to disastrous climate change consequences.

namuol 5y ago

You're exaggerating. Skepticism is is a multi dimensional spectrum. Certain flavors of "skepticism" have been abused and, well, society has shifted its trust accordingly.

shkkmo 5y ago

Don't confuse intellectual contrarianism with true skepticism. a lot of people claiming to be engaged in the later are really just adherents to the former. A true skeptic applies that skepticism as equally to their own beliefs and to frings beliefs as they do to popular or widely accepted beliefs.

adamrezich 5y ago
is there any difference between "intellectual contrarianism" and "true skepticism" aside from whether or not you agree with the conclusions being reached (or perhaps the questions being asked)?
- jfengel 5y ago
  The difference is intellectual honesty. If you're truly willing to consider the evidence, and not just seek out things to reinforce your pre-existing conclusion, then you can be skeptical. Otherwise you're just contrarian. The problem is that if somebody is dishonest, there's no way to convince them that they're being dishonest. Either they know it, and refuse to admit it, or they're so dishonest that they've completely lost track of what it means to objectively evaluate evidence. So it's the kind of thing that experts in the domain will all be able to discern, while those same experts will be thought of as conspirators by the contrarian (and reinforced by their equally non-expert circle of trusted acquaintances). About the only hope you have at that point is noticing when the conspiracy is so large that it's simply not reasonable to expect it to persist. But since they get reinforcement from their large circle of non-experts, they usually conclude that the same logic applies both ways.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Yes, absolutely. I already explained what that difference is but let me go further since you didn't understand: If you only apply your skepticism to polular narratives but not to your pet theories, then you are not truely a skeptic. It doesn't matter what you believe, it just matters that you approach what you believe with an equal or higher level of skepticism than you approach what others believe.
  - adamrezich 5y ago
    I see, and I agree completely!

titzer 5y ago

I, too, am skeptical that the sky is blue, space is black, and that the planets orbit the sun. I mean, I haven't directly observed space or the planets, so the scientific approach is to be skeptical. I also hold out some tiny hope that electrons aren't real and microprocessors are powered by multi-dimensional hamsters. It is denialism--really, it's willful, militant ignorance--at this point to go against the consensus on climate change. It's just being obtuse. All I can say is, buckle the F up, because the effects of climate change are compounding year by year and decade by decade. I am so confident in this, after reading tons on the subject, having been all over the world and seen it, that I'll just leave it there.