RE: Sceptics and Climate Sceptics
June 24, 2011 at 6:01 am
(This post was last modified: June 24, 2011 at 8:05 am by martin02.)
(June 24, 2011 at 5:36 am)theVOID Wrote: Words mean what you chose them to mean? Well that's rather telling isn't it...Other than it being a quote (of Humpty) it's prefaced with the word "not". Meaning not.
Quote:Completely irrelevant to the point at hand, that is, what it means to be sceptical of something and whether or not someone would rightly be called a sceptic for doubting a given proposition. Being a sceptic does not imply that you have a scientific epistemology, are rational or have any other reason for doubt.
Entirely relevant, as first you'd have to explain how this title applied to these specific people holding these specific views is not incongruous. As I haven't even cited any names I don't think it's feasible, but I'll withhold judgment until I see your argument.
It's not about sceptics or people known as sceptics, rather some specific people referred to as sceptics, in the most unusual media misnomer since the last one.
Quote:Firstly, you're generalising to an absurd degree - .
You can't seriously be accusing me of generalising from specifics--not to be Humpty Dumpty ...
Quote:And for the record, I know of someone who is sceptical of climate change ...
And the Himalayas are quite tall at this time of year. If that was my argument it might be relevant.
So again, your candidate would be: not a sceptic, ideologically and theologically hostile to the very concept of scepticism, and now aligned with climate scepticism. And thus a sceptic. But not a sceptic. And potentially very cross if you call them a sceptic. But currently called a sceptic. And self identified as a sceptic. And most of all not a scepetic. And of course the people I'm thinking of. And not a sceptic while being a sceptic. Ad infinitum ...
So one more time: it's nothing to do with people who are either or. Rather, those who would not be considered sceptics in any sense other than this instance. As if the media decided "child" was an appropriate abbreviation for "child murderer". If you can find one who conforms to both conditions (is hostile to all scepticism other than climate scepticism), without violating the spirit of either (is sensible in refuting all doubt other than this, and imposing all other dogma upon society) I suppose you can then refute by explaining how it doesn't annoy me.
