Why we have skeptics(scott.wiersdorf.org)
scott.wiersdorf.org
Why we have skeptics
http://scott.wiersdorf.org/blarney/091128a.html
2 comments
The author is naive and forgets one important detail: many "skeptics" are simply trying to muddle the debate. Think on how much the tobacco industry, the tetra-ethyl lead producers and other industries lobbied for years against serious research that threatened their interests.
The big problem is to understand if you're really convincing an engaging a skeptic or simply feeding a troll.
The big problem is to understand if you're really convincing an engaging a skeptic or simply feeding a troll.
> The big problem is to understand if you're really convincing an engaging a skeptic or simply feeding a troll.
Actually, that's not your problem.
And, even if it is, that doesn't justify unscientific behavior.
If you want to be treated as a source of reliable information, you have to actually be one. You don't get to complain about how other people behave.
Actually, that's not your problem.
And, even if it is, that doesn't justify unscientific behavior.
If you want to be treated as a source of reliable information, you have to actually be one. You don't get to complain about how other people behave.
Some of best scientist are skeptic.
Skeptic and science go together in hands as brothers of gaining knowledge through doubt of knowledge.
When one or other says no to this doubt, and does not continue the knowledge they are as bad as other.
When one says no to evidence or it is another to say no to give.
These are both ignorance of transfer of knowledge. There is nothing knew of this halt in trade despite abundance. Only through doubt and then acceptance, doubt and then transfer of knowledge can both be truly the same.
With holding information neither will advance. The "high road" is not the high road, it is the only road. Only path that will take you somewhere other than already are.