If you disbelieve everything you hear and tell people constantly that they’re full of shit if they don’t provide evidence, that’s not being a skepdick, that’s just being a plain old dick. Which isn’t good. At all.
Being a skepdick is different. A skepdick politely attempts to show someone their belief is based on lack of evidence by using good science and critical thinking, but, despite best efforts, sometimes (often) fails to make an impression other than that of a contrarian. Arguing through condescension and haughtiness means you’re being a dick. Arguing by finding common ground and sticking to the evidence means you are doing the right thing, even though people still may label you a skepdick.
Is it better to hurt some people’s feelings or step on some toes if it gets them to question whether their beliefs are built on quicksand or should you just sit back and let them believe in nonsense? Stay polite and expose how people’s belief despite lack of any credible evidence is the wrong way to live and perhaps the world will be a better place because of it. Carl Sagan said it best, “nonsense is reassuring but I can’t believe in it and I can’t allow anyone else to believe either.”
Have some thoughts about the skepdick or a comment about one of the posts? Or is there a topic you’d like the skepdick to discuss? Please send me an email or post a comment.
196,411 total views, 46 views today