|
|
It's the very fast and loose usage of the word skeptic that makes me smile.
A scientific skeptic:
with the abilities to quantify and validate the empirical data to a point of making a qualified assesment as to whether it meets their stringent requirements for a supported hypothesis.
Has some scientific credibility and respect.
A public skeptic or personality:
A member of the general public or a personality in the public domain that decides to follow a particular school of thought based not on any particular qualified assessment, but on their own personal feelings and understanding of the analysis of others.
Only has respect based on popularity or pure charismatic ability to persuade.
Most of us posters are going to generally fall into the public skeptic category if we wish to challenge what is understood to be the general scientific consenus or in some cases the world view if the consenus of the public is not that of science.
From my perspective, the main high profile sources of scientific skepticism come from scientists that have been shown to have financial links to the fossil fuel industry.
The main high profile public skeptics are usually associated with Fox News and other clown shoes broadcasting networks with their thinly disguised extreme partisanship and their demonstratable lies.
There are other exceptions, like David barmpot Bellamy, but mostly they tend to have links to industry, churches or the media looking to sell airspace and book deals.
From the non skeptic side, the vast majority are highly qualified, highly talented and high profile individuals and organisations, many with total political freedom and no financial motivation.
Royal Society guide to climate change vs' Fox News. |
|
26-11-2019 04:24:46
Author
I think it was Private Eye that gave it the nickname originally.