“‘Sceptic’ comes from the Greek skeptikos, meaning enquirer, and has a long and serious pedigree in philosophy. Yet, since the 1990s, the term has been hijacked by science-denial movements, giving us oxymorons like ‘climate sceptic’, ‘vaccine sceptic’, and ‘evolution sceptic’. These movements understood that ‘sceptic’ has cultural prestige: it sounds rigorous, independent-minded, and anti-establishment, so they colonised it. The move was brilliant and corrosive, as it reframed denial as enquiry. The difference shows in practice: a genuine sceptic, confronted with compelling new evidence, updates – whereas the contrarian does not: they shift goalposts, raise new objections, or ignore what they cannot explain, all while citing studies selectively and appealing to the handful of dissenting experts cherrypicking the evidence. Their doubt is not the productive Socratic doubt that opens enquiry but a rhetorical shield that forecloses it. These self-styled sceptics are in fact dogmatists, having reached their conclusions in advance and thereafter simply engaging in rationalisations. On the other side, a certain strand of scientism has overcorrected by demanding certainty as the price of admission for any belief worth holding, deploying ‘follow the science’ as a conversation-stopper rather than an invitation to enquiry. That is not how real science works either.” https://aeon.co/essays/a-good-sceptic-has-more-than-doubt-and-less-than-certainty