3 ms·
The author is still a skeptic in the sense you described (first paragraph.) He just rejects the identification with the social group.
by praptak 14y ago
The author is still a skeptic in the sense you described (first paragraph.) He just rejects the identification with the social group.
- dalke 14y agoIt's as boring as saying "I love science fiction but I'm not a member of SF fandom."
- lutusp 14y agoFair enough, but I think (a) skeptics aren't necessarily a group, and (b) perhaps skeptics should stand up and be counted as individuals. This view might not seem important in a society in which religious True Believers keep to themselves, or evolution deniers don't form their own political movements and try to change what's taught in school, but we don't live in that society. Pollsters regularly tally up voting blocs based on the views people are willing to express -- like the religious, and like those who reject a scientific outlook. If skeptics don't ever speak up, society might miss the fact that the outlook even exists. And reasonable people may differ.