I see,
so you are a true skeptic.
But you only become a skeptic once someone is shown to have 'lied' or acted with - shall we say - impropriety.
In the meantime you happily gobble up all that is sold to you.
That IS your version of skepticism?
let me show you, the definition of scientific skepticism:
"A scientific (or
empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a
systematic investigation.
[6] The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on
testable hypotheses and critical thinking."
and here, is the definition of pseudo-skepticism:
"The term
pseudoskepticism was popularized and characterized by Marcello Truzzi in response to
skeptics who, in his opinion,
made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.
[9]
While a Professor of Sociology at
Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar which he founded:
"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The
true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the
burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the
true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a
critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--
he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
9-11 Truthers, are pseudo-skeptics.
Moon landing hoaxers, are pseudo-skeptics.
Holocaust deniers, are pseudo-skeptics.
and many AGW deniers, are also, pseudo-skeptics.
