Skeptical Inquirer (March/April 2015) (of which I’m a subscriber of some 20+ years), in an unsigned article, covers a statement offered by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry:
Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.
This is worthwhile to know as sometimes climate change deniers characterize themselves as skeptics. For those of us who don’t feel they have enough time in the world to know everything (sign me up for that crowd), we all look for those signs of reliability, or for the countersigns, when reading about subjects beyond our competence. In the latter class, for example, having been in the telecommunications hobby for 30+ years, I think I’m a little more sensitive than the average person to the use of language as an indicator of either irrationality or deceit, as there seems to be a correlation in certain patterns of immature communication to irrational mindsets. This can range from using certain adjectives repeatedly, to the classic improper use of punctuation, to feeling the information density of the missive is below a certain level.
For me, the proper use of scientific method is a sign that someone is at least being serious in attempting to evaluate an issue. Yes, yes, they can be wrong – science is always contingent on the next development, on improper observation, invalid evaluations, even on the foibles of the scientists themselves. In a sense, science never provides a final answer – but, from historical comparisons of scientific method with other methods of knowing the world, it comes out the clear winner.
What signs do you use? Let me know.
