There was a good series of articles in a recent edition of The New scientist (15/05/10) looking at the idea of deniers (who often believe they are sceptics but generally are not). As someone who is trained in environmental science I believe in the rigures and processes of good analytical and theoretical science and that it can find answers - not all answers, certainly not with absolute truth and that element of doubt means we must be alert to the possibility of changing our ideas. I’m not saying science doesn’t get things wrong, or that sometimes it is mislead, but a good scientist (sceptic) will follow the evidence to find the truth, even if it means it contradicts their initial position. As there’s a great deal to consider on this topic I shall probably look at it over a period of time, otherwise this piece could be too long and boring for one reading.
To start with lets look at the broad definition given in the first article (by Michael Shermer).
Sceptic - carefully considers the evidence for each (idea/claim) and is willing to follow the facts wherever they lead.
Denier - has a tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest.
Clearly the definition given here of a sceptic must include all scientific investigation and the good scientist. I’m sure that there are scientists who are so entrenched in their ideas that they fall into the category of denier, and it is those scientists that can be considered “bad” and who can find themselves inadvertently useful to other deniers.
Michael Shermer suggests that “denial is typically driven by ideology or religious belief where the belief takes precedence over evidence”. You could use the phrase “what I believe is true and everything else is a lie” In this case a sceptic would add “... is a lie, until proven otherwise”
I could carry on along these lines but I’m sure you see the point. If you don’t could it be that you are a denier, or is it that I haven’t made a very good argument to persuade you (such a sceptic)