What is the difference between a skeptic and a denialist?

Update:

Some examples of both would be appreciated.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Favorite Answer

    A skeptic is a person that questions what they are told, and seeks evidence as to whether the information is true or not. This can apply to all aspects of your life, for example not trusting fantastical medical claims, such as that crystals will heal you, not trusting paranormal claims such as fortune telling or not trusting your husband when he tells you he has been working back late and yet can't explain why his breath smells like hookers.

    A denialist on the other hand does not question, they take their stance and firmly hold to it even when the evidence is conflicting. Anti vaxxers are one good example as are people that believe in psychics despite there not being one scrap of reliable evidence.

    • ...Show all comments
    • RWPossum
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      Thank you. I would provide details about Dr Utts' findings, but if I did, the question would be reported as a violation and then removed.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 months ago

    A sceptic is a person who likes to listen to both sides then weighs up in his own mind which is the most probable. A denialist is a person who can't accept evidence and gives a strong negative answer to anything that makes him uncomfortable. His world must be as he sees it. He will accept only what his own senses tell him. Unfortunately, his senses can be beaten by a cat or dog.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Skeptics attempt to refute assumptions which they feel are based upon misinterpreted appearances (illusions) or results. A “skeptic” might doubt that the magician really pulled a rabbit out of an ‘empty’ hat, despite the illusory appearance of so doing, and could successfully employ analytical techniques to win the argument. A climate change denier or “denialist”, on the other hand, could be presented with overwhelmingly conclusive and objective scientific data that climate change is indeed a reality, and yet still be unwilling to acknowledge such a reality. So you could say that a skeptic uses objective analysis to disprove an illusion, while a denialist attempts to use (illusory) subjectivity to disprove a reality. (Part of that “A” belongs to me...)

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Joseph
    Lv 6
    6 months ago

    I once had an argument with an intelligent mostly rational person and I presented genuine evidence he just refused to acknowledge. He was dead wrong in front of a dozen experts. That was a denialist.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Tom
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    One is Logic Based and the latter is Emotionally based

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 months ago

    That's a false dichotomy. The opposite of skepticism is gullibility, not denial. A skeptic examines the evidence for a claim, and either believes it or disbelieves it based on that evidence.

    .

    .

    • wilds_of_virginia
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      I see the denialist as a more extreme form of skeptic. One who won't change his mind regardless of evidence provided. They are no opposites.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 7 months ago

    Issac Asimov was a skeptic, not a denialist.

    "The evidence for a supernatural reality is dubious at best."

    - Asimov

    If I say your dog is ugly, I'm saying your dog exists.

    " No one is arguing that psi abilities are strong – if

    they were, we wouldn’t be debating their existence."

    - Jessica Utts, president, American Statistical Association

    • ...Show all comments
    • RWPossum
      Lv 7
      7 months agoReport

      Dr. Utts means that none of the scientists involved in this research says psi abilities are strong.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 7 months ago

    A denialist is someone that does not agree with me, they are sick in the head, and they have spots and slanty eyes and a penchant for shirt lifting.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Gary K
    Lv 7
    7 months ago

    It depends on how you're defining skeptic . I identify as a scientific skeptic; I question claims lacking empirical evidence or are outside of mainstream science, using rationalism, critical thinking and knowledge of science to evaluate such claims. Skeptics don't deny non-empirical claims, they question them and will remain open to changing their minds pending robust evidence or scientific consensus.

    Skeptics don't ignore empirical facts or truths to suit some prebelief or ideology, which is the primary difference between them and denialists. If you are aware of the scientific consensus for anthropogenic climate change but are still skeptical, you're not technically a climate skeptic. That's hijacking the term. You're a climate denier .

    If you are aware of the complete lack of scientific evidence and plausibility of ghosts despite centuries of investigation, but deny this and choose to believe in them regardless, you're a denialist.

    See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_den...

    • ...Show all comments
    • English Guy
      Lv 6
      6 months agoReport

      Then why do you hang on to words like "scope" when proved wrong? You sunshine are a denialist. You are ill Gary.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Retief
    Lv 7
    7 months ago

    A skeptic is a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

    A denialist is a person who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence;

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.