"Skeptical arguments" refer to logical or reasoned doubts or criticisms that are expressed in order to question or challenge a certain belief, claim, or statement. These arguments are used to encourage thorough examination and analysis, rather than purely accepting something without questioning or seeking evidence.
Full definition
This made us reflect on the bigger issues of how scientists should be interacting with the media and how we should be dealing
with skeptical arguments.
I was even more amused by his list of 10
bad skeptical arguments, in part because I still read all of them being used all over the internet.
In the report (PDF), which recants many of the popular
skeptical arguments regarding climate change, Schwartz claims that [Al] «Gore's brand of over-the-top climate hysteria has nothing to do with reality,» and that «Most of the greenhouse effect is natural and is due to water vapor naturally in the atmosphere, as well as natural levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and a few other greenhouse gases.»
Below is a complete listing of the articles in «How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,» a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common
skeptical arguments on global warming.
I read some of your link to» skeptics arguments refuted» [or some such], and as usual they are strawman arguments which distort the
real skeptical arguments.
Particularly on a topic of such great public relevance, scientists need to consider
carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them.
Conveniently, he recently did just that on his blog, listing what he considers the «Top Ten
Good Skeptical Arguments,» throwing in an 11th for good measure.
Is there a way to show enough respect to the opposing argument to engage people so that the litany
of skeptical arguments that are tossed about can be sequentially addressed and put respectively into the camps of «confirmed», «need further research» and «debunked»?
This document was recently released to the public and features the human fingerprints of global warming along with rebuttals of some of the more
common skeptical arguments.
Accordingly, as J. Bottum puts it («Christians and Postmoderns,» FT, February 1994), «postmodernity is still in the line of modernity, as rebellion against rebellion is still rebellion, as an attack on the constraints of grammar must still be written in grammatical sentences, as
a skeptical argument against the structures of rationality must still be put rationally.»
Postmodernity is still in the line of modernity, as rebellion against rebellion is still rebellion, as an attack on the constraints of grammar must still be written in grammatical sentences, as
a skeptical argument against the structures of rationality must still be put rationally.
«contributing factor» is far too vague to ask a question that can be answered and therefore should not be use in
a skeptical argument, since a skeptic WANTS answers.
He doesn't see
the skeptical arguments as anything other than sourceless items unhooked from time.
The point of this post is not to rehash yet again all
the skeptical arguments.
Possibly you are distracted by academic degrees and such: some of
the skeptical arguments are important.
I expect few surprises in the Red Team report, since
the skeptical arguments have already been thoroughly articulated.