You proved that boingboing is not a trustworthy website. But it might be still interesting to speculate on why Trump didnt release the medical report (if he indeed, didnt release it)
Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry,[1] is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.
Speculating about that sort of thing is not really a skeptical point of view, which is based in evidence. Until we can see what is under the bandage, we will not know why the big bandage is necessary.
Skepticism, also spelled scepticism (from the Greek σκέπτομαι skeptomai, to search, to think about or look for), refers to a doubting attitude toward knowledge.
It doesn’t require evidence to be a skeptic, merely to question claims made by others. When only dogma and hearsay exist, a skeptic should draw no conclusions.
However, regarding Trump, based on past evidence of his behavior, a skeptic could assume a high probability of deception in some form.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard it said that a skeptical viewpoint must be rooted in evidence.
I think people are skeptical of pretty much anything that Trump does or says because he’s a proven serial liar. That still isn’t evidence that any individual claim is false, though.
Is this a domain specific definition, something outside of conversational usage? Or am I just totally out to lunch?
I wouldn’t exactly call BoingBoing a good source for skeptics.
Just look at the front page- It’s a combination of political gossip, regular gossip and just random trash.
These are the top three “stories” right now.
Deutsche Welle it is not.
You proved that boingboing is not a trustworthy website. But it might be still interesting to speculate on why Trump didnt release the medical report (if he indeed, didnt release it)
wild speculation is not an exercise in skepticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
Speculating about that sort of thing is not really a skeptical point of view, which is based in evidence. Until we can see what is under the bandage, we will not know why the big bandage is necessary.
It doesn’t require evidence to be a skeptic, merely to question claims made by others. When only dogma and hearsay exist, a skeptic should draw no conclusions.
However, regarding Trump, based on past evidence of his behavior, a skeptic could assume a high probability of deception in some form.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard it said that a skeptical viewpoint must be rooted in evidence.
I think people are skeptical of pretty much anything that Trump does or says because he’s a proven serial liar. That still isn’t evidence that any individual claim is false, though.
Is this a domain specific definition, something outside of conversational usage? Or am I just totally out to lunch?
Please read Carl Sagan’s nine precepts of skeptical thinking. It is in the sidebar.