Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Well evolution is really not entirely certain so it's important to take that point of view scientifically just in-case we've made a mistake. Of course it's obviously true but who knows, I'm sure humanity has said that before.

Holocaust denialism is another topic completely unrelated to science, and this discussion.

You can't deny all denialism just by lumping it all in a big category. Skepticism is the foundation of science.

I’m talking about non-experts approaching a subject with genuine curiosity and an honest desire to form a balanced perspective. I don’t have a PhD in climate science nor biology nor history so I believe the most reasonable starting point is to try to understand the expert consensus. Scientific skepticism on the part of non-experts is just a form of cynicism or - more generally - a form of confirmation bias.

Fair enough, I don't think it's a good way to convince people to simply claim your excellence however. I'm not interested in arguments from authority. If there's a big spat in a scientific field, usually you get this distribution. It's hard to be a skeptic in science, but that's where all the action is.

Typically useful scientific fields are based in the hard sciences where this doesn't happen, I guess.

How can you even know what the consensus is?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com