RE: How I Learned to Love Pseudoscience
October 10, 2021 at 3:20 pm
(This post was last modified: October 10, 2021 at 3:29 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(October 9, 2021 at 2:18 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:
Nice video for anyone with 10 or so minutes to spare.
But something she said really irks me: "The word 'skeptical' has suffered in recent years because a lot of science-deniers now claim to be 'skeptics.'"
And you know what? She's right. But I am loathe to call science-deniers skeptics. I think the skepticism inherent in science is way more rigorous than the skepticism of anti-vaxxers and such. And that's why I don't want to call these people skeptics. It's skepticism without rigor. And that hardly counts as skepticism at all in my book.
What do you think? Do science-deniers qualify as skeptics?
They qualify as skeptics. but they don’t qualify as truth seeking skeptics. rather they use skepticism as a convenient tool in a purposed effort to aggrandize what they conceive to be their own interest at the expense of truth.
(October 10, 2021 at 9:12 am)no one Wrote: Science is always right, regardless of what some brainless buffoon thinks.
Humans may not understand, that does not change the validity of said science.
As little as 200 years ago there wasn't anyone who understood the lifecycle of a star, that did nothing to change the science of the lifecycle of stars
one of the fundamental defect of our traditional world view is it does not equip much of society to effectively handle the realities of right and wrong as anything other than in the context of a false dichotomy.
science is not always right, in fact it is still mostly at least partially wrong. but it is nonetheless always much more likely to be at least partially right than any the product of any competing means of determining what is right.
