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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.