Skeptics

Standard

I saw someone today claim they were not a climate change denier but rather a climate skeptic. I understand why they might say such a thing. Being a skeptic seems like a healthy rational thing to do. Being in denial is generally associated with having some mental disorder or perhaps an addiction. In this case, I suppose, to oil.

I admire skeptics – people who refuse to accept something as true simply because someone in authority says it is true. Many – though not all – skeptics are particularly skeptical of religion. Others demands that ‘extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.’ However, there is a point where skepticism is not skepticism at all; it is full out refusal to accept that any proof does or even can exist to shift their point of view. This is an admirable position I suppose when it comes to belief in God; after all, religion is supposed to be a matter of faith and anyone who would demand proof of God’s existence might be dismissed as ‘one of little faith.’

However, science is another matter. When the preponderance of evidence – all the evidence – points in a certain direction, the only value of skepticism is to continue to run the data – all the data – to see if there is a flaw or if there is an alternative theory. However, picking and choosing data or claiming that all the data that doesn’t agree with your particular idea is false, or better, yet, part of a great conspiracy… well, I did refer to mental illness.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that climate change deniers are only a bunch of quacks. Some have legitimate questions and are determined to make sure of the facts before buying into the consensus. Interestingly, when they do their work, a lot of these people come to accept that maybe there really is something to this stuff. Others hold on no matter what. Some people are a lot like the Fonz. They have a hard time saying they were wrong.

There is nothing new to any of this. Back in the sixties, you could find medical researchers who claimed that the link between smoking and cancer was a false one – bad science or some kind of conspiracy to take away people’s pleasure. A few of these people were legitimate scientists who had questions; the rest were mostly in the pay of cigarette companies. Law suits since those days have proven that they knew full well they were in denial – well, they were outright lying – in order to protect their bosses’ income. Recently, a court in Quebec ordered the largest payment ever from tobacco companies to their victims, I mean, customers, proving that you can run but you can’t hide. Sort of like the people in Florida who are running from ever rising sea levels.

I could go on – the psychology of people who embrace conspiracy theories is fascinating – but I’ll refer you instead to an interesting book called Voodoo Histories that explores that in depth. As for those who engage in denying evidence for monetary purposes – they’re not very interesting; they’re just evil.

But that’s ten minutes.

Advertisements

One thought on “Skeptics

  1. It’s funny, I was just thinking about this topic after reading the ramblings of a manned space-flight “skeptic” (also a 9/11 truther, because, of course.)

    I’m a very skeptical person in general, doubt is something that comes easy to me. And what I’ve learned is that doubt is a tool. And like any tool it can be used correctly or it can be misapplied. Expressing doubt about something because there is not sufficient evidence, or the evidence is contradictory is healthy. However expressing doubt about something because it is inconvenient to your lifestyle, or because you fail to understand the evidence is a misapplication of that tool.

    Climate change deniers largely fall into one of those two camps. Either they choose to doubt human-caused climate change because the proposed remedy is inconvenient, or they fail to correctly understand the evidence: that a global warming pause has not happened, that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus regarding climate change, etc.

    Ultimately skepticism must be grounded in openness. You must always remain open to the next new fact, open to the chance what you know might be wrong. But that’s something even more practiced skeptics get wrong all the time (myself included).

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s