On 12/9/2014 3:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:49 AM, LizR <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 8 December 2014 at 23:36, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
You can notice the subtle change in the meaning of being a "skeptic".
The
original meaning is very close to "agnostic" but it has been slowly
sliding into
a strong preference for common sense, which is to say, the belief of
the majority.
Yes that seems possible, indeed likely. Also it gets kidnapped by "climate
change
sceptics" and suchlike,
I would say that anyone who labels themselves as "X skeptics" are already missing the
point. Skepticism is a general attitude towards knowledge.
who are using it in the "postmodern" sense that loosely translates as "you
can't
prove X 100% therefore not-X is 'just as valid'."
Is this really the prevalent argument from climate change disbelievers?
It's a common argument I hear in regard to whether human activity is responsible for any
particular climate phenomenon. I hear, "It's just natural cycles. CO2 was much higher in
the past, before humans even existed."
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
