"What, If Anything, Can Skeptics Say About Science?"

Daniel Loxton wrote an interesting blogpost back in 2009. I've quoted the four main points here, but more elaboration for each point is available in the link.



What, If Anything, Can Skeptics Say About Science?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Loxton 1) Where both scientific domain expertise and expert consensus exist, skeptics are (at best) straight science journalists. We can report the consensus, communicate findings in their proper context — and that’s it. 2) Where scientific domain expertise exists, but not consensus, we can report that a controversy exists — but we cannot resolve it. As Bertrand Russell put it, Quote: Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell when the experts are…not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and… when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment. 3) Where scientific domain expertise and consensus exist, but also a denier movement or pseudoscientific fringe, skeptics can finally roll up their sleeves and get to work. This is traditional ground for us, our bread and butter, as when we combat creationism or vaccine paranoia or AIDS denial. But note that there are two distinct components to critiquing fringe movements: knowledge of pseudoscience (our own area of domain expertise); and knowledge of the contrasting body of actual scientific literature — a literature on which we are not typically expert. 4) Where a paranormal or pseudoscientific topic has enthusiasts but no legitimate experts, skeptics may perform original research, advance new theories, and publish in the skeptical press.

I think these four points are very, very sensible and reasonable. Someone in another thread seemed to think that they were controversial. Are they? If so, why? Are they faulty in some way? If so, how?

via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1eTvrom