A "debunker" is someone who doubts some hairy story and actually goes to
the effort of checking the assertions to see if they are factual or
not. Usually of course they are not. I can see why believers don't
like them and would censor them if they could.
A "skeptic" is just someone who doesn't accept unusual or exotic claims
without damn good evidence. They tend to be of a lazier sort than the
debunkers and are prone to make logical arguments but leave it at
that. I think that tends to be where I am most of the time. The
religious types who have been indoctrinated, generally as children,
don't like these at all, as they like their comfortable beliefs and
don't want them doubted.
A "cynic" is a step beyond the skeptic and is in fact in some ways
closer to the believer, especially when it comes to "official" versions
of things, and as a result is prone to accept conspiracy theories that
fit with their political views.
And then there are the legions of "believers" who rely on faith rather
than evidence and reason. A skeptic only has opinions, the others
believe, and when cornered inevitably depend on their right to believe
whatever, or on the tremendous virtue of having faith in the face of
plain sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment