And the continued commitment to said misspelling in the comment from OP, really doubled down there.

Having ethics, as in being ethical, or having no ethics, as in being unethical. Definition of ethical: pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. Having ethics is to conduct with morality, not having ethics is to conduct without morality. Self-centered is unethical or having no ethics. Your comment is exactly the point of my original post, twist and bastardize whatever you need to in order to justify your opinion.

Except the covid response, lab origin theory, or efficacy of the vaccines, we can’t be skeptical about that. Or Pfizer.

eh, one day we may know everything, a billion years is a long time.

never seen a convincing reason why we cant learn everything, we just need better tools (all of history supports it)

Oh good, I'm not the only one thrown off by the use of sceptic

the current modern ones?

the anti-vax movement either focus on A) new shit like the COVID vaccine (its beyond apparent at this stage that its safe) or B) old-ass mercury containing vaccines from the 1930s.

which 'definition' are you using?

i oppose mandatory vaccination on the grounds of inalienable right to bodily autonomy, not some completely inaccurate nonsense about their safety.

But what if you’re skeptical of the wrong thing?

I don’t need help to be a skeptic. I already don’t believe anything scientist say about how the universe began, how the universe works, the origins of our existence, and what will happen when we die.

There is no such thing as an all knowing scientist and philosopher. Theories are not facts, so I don’t believe in the Big Bang nor nothingness until there is solid proof. For now, scientists like Hawking have gotten on my nerves for never admitting to not knowing the answer to something and just guess base off belief. They failed to come up with a good alternative or show proof of one while talking down about religion and spirituality.

My brother-in-law is the ''well actually'' guy, and he actually does say that.

He is a man of clearly superior intellect, Rain Man level of recall for tiny little factoids about everything. it's just a shame that he always feels the need to prove his superiority with every conversation. This makes him often unpleasant, when he is otherwise a pleasant man.

Yeah like capitalism and anti-socialism/anti-communism.

Cue the Keynesianists about to attack me with "reformed capitalism is the single best economic truth." They'll accept a grand narrative without hesitation if it means no bolsheviks, pinkies, and hippies.

"to economics and history in the pursuit of a good life for ourselves and others."

Uh huh...and how many people saying this will still turn out to be bleeding heart neoliberals who jerk off Capitalism. Willing to bet this crowd is hardcore anti-communist/anti-socialist. "Be skeptical about everything, except the only economic system that works" capitalist realism.

Totally agree

Too extreme on either side is not a good thing. Life is all about finding a healthy balance I think.

I’m feeling skeptical because of the misspelling in that title

Not so sure about that.

And when the peers are biased due to Ideologies, how can the truth come out? Speaking about gatekeeping etc.

Generally yes. But what I'm witnessing is the people who are aware of that become extremely skeptical to a very toxic degree...

"The irony is unbelievable. How can you make the case for "scientific skepticism" and in the next breath talk about how we cannot accept vaccine and climate skepticism?'

I agree 100%. But for many, if it doesn't fit their narrative then....

Are these people against vaccination for all conditions or just Covid? These are two distinct groups

In order to agree with this, you'd have to agree with the following premises:

1. 90% of the body of scientific knowledge dreamed up has been proven wrong or incomplete

2. The above trend is likely to apply to the scientific knowledge that is considered likely to be true today

3. The types of discoveries that show science to be incomplete mean that the old theory wasn't worthwhile and has no use

4. This 90% figure can be applied to all the science that laypeople encounter.

The first one is going to be a toss up, especially if you include all the theories which are disproven by testing. If this is being used to reach this figure, it doesn't do a good job of building the case for this premise because it's an example of science working properly, eliminating theories that make inaccurate predictions.

The second is uncertain. We don't know what the future holds, but we know that we're not likely to discover that quantum mechanics is pseudo science on the level of leeches to cure plague. The science that the world uses today to make medications and computers and all the material spectacles we enjoy today has been validated to the point that any new theories will likely give them greater context and not simply wipe them away, much like Einstein's theories didn't completely demolish the theories of Newton and Galileo. Which segues into:

The third premise is pretty easy to dismiss. Newtonian physics has been thoroughly demonstrated to be incomplete, yet his discoveries are still used to guide the trajectories of satellites. Some science keeps being useful even when it's no longer able to describe extremes of our perplexing universe.

The final premise is that this 90% figure, wherever it came from, will prove to be true for the science we learn in high school. This, again, is unlikely, precisely because by the time science becomes a high school topic, it has usually withstood hundreds of years of validation. The most recent science in schools is probably the standard model of the atom, which has been so impossible to disprove that they have to keep making larger and larger super colliders trying to find anything at all to threaten its validity.

So no, I don't think 90% of the scientific knowledge people are meant to have learned will be made completely useless anytime soon. But in the current climate, it's possible that a large percentage of the science people have convinced themselves is true is nonsense, only that it was already proven to be nonsense centuries ago

Its just a rule that a study is only as trustable as it is repeatable. Most meaningful science is repeatable, with potentially hundreds of scientists conducting the same experiments.

Hm... I'm skeptical of this advice.

That's literally not how it works though. That's not faith, that is called research and making assumptions. Assumptions and Faith may be similar at a glance but they are definitely different.

Or perhaps they are questioning the authorities that have a track record of openly lying to them, as when, early the pandemic, the experts all said masks weren't very useful against Covid, not because they didn't know better but because supplies of decent masks were limited and they didn't want a run on them.

And you see a lot of lies like that from governments, the establishment, etc. Often their core supporters don't even experience the lies as lies, because the lies aren't meant to fool them. As when then primary-candidate Obama promised blue collar workers he'd tear up NAFTA, while sending messages to the Canadian government assuring them this was just a campaign lie. When it came out, it didn't kill Obama's political fortunes, because his core supporters all knew he was lying any way, to get those low information idiots onboard.

But the penalty for lying repeatedly to people you don't respect is that they eventually start to just assume everything you are saying is a lie. And it seems like a lot of Americans have reached that point with the government and its associated experts.

[deleted]