[karajorma]

Why are there skeptics within scientific circles?  More specifically, what is the reasoned response to their critique?  I find it more than troubling that skepticism is so derided, to the point of ad hominem (eg.implying association with "anti-vaxxors", etc., etc.).

The thing is that the anti-vaxxors would claim that they are sceptics too. They can also produce a few scientists and doctors who have the same view they have. Hell the whole MMR nonsense started over a paper in a no less distinguished journal than The Lancet. The same mistakes they make, are made by people who are sceptical about climate change. It's just that it's so much more obvious that the anti-vaxxers are wrong.

Scepticism is fine, it's an important part of science. The problem with scepticism comes when people insist that the sceptics must be right, not because of the science, but because they don't like the message from the other side. When you include comments about how much money Al Gore has (Politician is corrupt! What a shock!) you detract from any attempt to claim that your opinion is based on science rather than simply listening to the wrong people.

To be fair, I'll ask, what rigor have you applied to the subject?  Are you a climatologist?

Let me ask that right back. On what scientific basis have you decided that there is anything to be sceptical about this issue and not some other scientific subject?

[Meneldil]

I agree with the rest of your post. But if you were swayed by arguments that turned out to be correct arguments, then weren't you correct? I get what you're saying and I've already agreed the smart money is on the majority of scientists rather than the faction, but if you thought the faction was right and then the faction then turned out to be right, you're right too. If you still don't agree, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

You're free to feel smug about guessing who was right, but I won't call you right for believing some arguments you didn't actually understand, and disbelieving others you logically shouldn't have. If you did actually understand the arguments involved, then great, but then you aren't a layperson either.

Obviously "I was right" has different meanings, and if something you said turns out to be true, you can try saying that phrase, but I'm free to respond with "no you weren't, you just had a lucky guess". There's no sense arguing semantics however, so just to reiterate what my stance is: you're can have an opinion on a scientific debate (I love having opinions on scientific debates!), but as soon as you take yourself seriously, you're wrong. Of course I'm saying this more absolutely than I think it is, there's nuance and conceivable exceptions and stuff, but I think it's generally a very good rule.

[karajorma]

Indeed.

It's a more detailed version of the "Even a broken watch is correct twice a day" saying. The watch isn't correct by any measure which makes it actually useful as a watch.

[Lorric]

I agree with the rest of your post. But if you were swayed by arguments that turned out to be correct arguments, then weren't you correct? I get what you're saying and I've already agreed the smart money is on the majority of scientists rather than the faction, but if you thought the faction was right and then the faction then turned out to be right, you're right too. If you still don't agree, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

You're free to feel smug about guessing who was right, but I won't call you right for believing some arguments you didn't actually understand, and disbelieving others you logically shouldn't have. If you did actually understand the arguments involved, then great, but then you aren't a layperson either.

Obviously "I was right" has different meanings, and if something you said turns out to be true, you can try saying that phrase, but I'm free to respond with "no you weren't, you just had a lucky guess". There's no sense arguing semantics however, so just to reiterate what my stance is: you're can have an opinion on a scientific debate (I love having opinions on scientific debates!), but as soon as you take yourself seriously, you're wrong. Of course I'm saying this more absolutely than I think it is, there's nuance and conceivable exceptions and stuff, but I think it's generally a very good rule.

We're probably on the same page with this, since you put in about understanding the argument, which was what I was clinging onto, that someone might be able to understand the argument without being a scientist. You seem to be suggesting there'd be a middle ground for such people and I can go with that, along with exceptions and stuff. It was that you seemed rigid that there were no exceptions, and now I know you're not, I think we think basically the same on this.

Nice talking to you.