The Anatomy Of Denialism

[Amarok]

Thr dark side I refer to is generally directed at anti science views stop if heard this

"Well idea x is not 100% settled and on some distant day on some distant date It might change or some unknown factor might be discovered therefore I can ignore all the current data and all the current consensus or I can move the goal post to a demand of omniscience before I will accept it "

This is a particular favorite of creationists  on past events

"You can't prove some unknown factor did age the fossil etc. Therefore I can ignore all the current data. And can assert my baseless counter proposal based on nothing and pretend were on equal ground" 

Or yes even in climate change

" The climate is complex and no computer is all knowing so we can just ignore the current data .And the scientific  consensus .And insist there can be some unknown factor  we have not found driving said change .And ignore the one we know is contributing . As well as insisting we don't act on the current data"


This of course is absurd. And departs from the realm of healthy skepticism. To the realm of unhealthy faith that the paradigm will shift in the denialists favor at some point when at this time it dose not. Science can advance of data but that's what it advances on DATA . Not someone's assertion about imaged factors that will change the data.

Thoughts?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I agree. People should go with the best information currently available. The problem on the other side, is to issue promissory notes that someday, maybe there will be a natural* explanation for a particular phenomena. I'm thinking here of the hard problem problem of consciousness.

* The idea of what is truly natural seems elusive but generally seems to include specific assumptions like physical causal closure, monist reduction, etc.

[Rev. Rye]

Claims like these are like saying: "there's some controversy about the JFK assassination, whether Oswald acted alone, whether it involved someone else, or if he was even involved. Who's to say someday it won't turn out he didn't really get shot after all?" Yes, it's that stupid.

[RoadRunner79]

Thr dark side I refer to is generally directed at anti science views stop if heard this

"Well idea x is not 100% settled and on some distant day on some distant date It might change or some unknown factor might be discovered therefore I can ignore all the current data and all the current consensus or I can move the goal post to a demand of omniscience before I will accept it "

This is a particular favorite of creationists  on past events

"You can't prove some unknown factor did age the fossil etc. Therefore I can ignore all the current data. And can assert my baseless counter proposal based on nothing and pretend were on equal ground" 

Or yes even in climate change

" The climate is complex and no computer is all knowing so we can just ignore the current data .And the scientific  consensus .And insist there can be some unknown factor  we have not found driving said change .And ignore the one we know is contributing . As well as insisting we don't act on the current data"


This of course is absurd. And departs from the realm of healthy skepticism. To the realm of unhealthy faith that the paradigm will shift in the denialists favor at some point when at this time it dose not. Science can advance of data but that's what it advances on DATA . Not someone's assertion about imaged factors that will change the data.

Thoughts?

I agree as well. 100% certainty is rare, and not necessary. Hyper skepticism is damaging to our search for truth, not aiding in it. I also agree, that we should work with the best available data now. It may have to change, but we should look at the evidence, at hand, and what it says. Although I may not agree with you examples, the principles; I have stated here before.

[Amarok]

Nice try Wooter

Even if no natural explanation  is ever found( nor is anyone  asserting there will be) supernatural explanation are still "god done it" and thus worthless unsupported mental masturbation. And no naturalism isn't obligated to have an explanation before we can reject a baseless supernatural one. (the hard problem really isn't a problem and you have been schooled on this before)

As for naturalism no assumption just raw data (with you imposing assumption were making)with you have alredy been whopped on.

So your attempt to highjack my thread to spew apologetics fails