Skepticism is not automatically bad faith, and I really try to make that point clear when I say that most flat earthers are not arguing in bad faith, although t

Skepticism is not automatically bad faith, and I really try to make that point clear when I say that most flat earthers are not arguing in bad faith, although their worldview seems to sustain a massive conflict with reality. I would even say that the vast majority of people who argue that climate change is not real do not argue in bad faith, they really believe it. But in both of my examples there _are_ bad faith shills, and they poison the discourse. Bad faith is when your external motives supersede your opinion on the topic. Good faith is engaging directly with the topic. Another example: If someone is arguing that abortion should be illegal because it is dangerous for the woman, and they believe this because a friend of theirs was injured in an abortion, or because they heard it on Fox news, they are making an argument in good faith. For whatever reason, they really believe in the risk to the health of the woman. If someone is making the same argument, after understanding the statistics on abortion and childbirth, because they care about the life of the unborn child, they are making an argument in bad faith. Their feelings about the effects of abortion are motivating an argument about the safety of abortion. I never said it was easy to distinguish - but clearly bad-faith skepticism exists. If you leave it be it will poison discourse. Engaging with and understanding the worldviews of people you are discussing with is expensive and it is painful if the person on the other side has no intention of engaging with your or even their own arguments.