Todayâ€™s AI comes courtesy of Catherine, who submitted this very interesting question via the contact form:
Do you ever feel like an â€œoutsiderâ€ to the skeptical community on a specific topic?
Like Catherine, I agree with the skeptics on most issues, but sometimes I have a different point of view. Of course, thatâ€™s whatâ€™s great about science – it’s a method, not a belief system.
But not all topics are black and white. Should the skeptical community ever take a position on a social issue, or any issue that relies not on evidence, but on opinion?
Any group of similar people is bound to agree on a number of issues, and Iâ€™m not opposed to skeptics sharing a core set of conclusions as long as they have objective merit. But what makes skepticism unique is its lack of dogma, and its openness to diverse ideas*. Are we as skeptics living up to that ideal? Or is acceptance by the skeptical community contingent on holding certain opinions or beliefs? If so, are they all evidence-based?
*…as long as they have merit. Ideas that lack objective merit are quickly discarded in the battle of ideas.