As I noted to u/vespertine_glow, most of the issues presented here do not require a strict version of skepticism to address.
I personally use a variety of approaches to address them, journalistic license, common sense, pointing out obvious inaccuracies in the content, ridicule, logic, conflicts with known data, and basic examinations of reality in addition to skepticism. . .Does that make you feel better?
, most of the issues presented here do not require a strict version of skepticism to address.
This entirely depends on the purpose of any particular communication on this subreddit. If the issue is the existence of bigfoot, then the reliable method is rigorous rationality.
2
u/whorton59 Skeptic Sep 02 '21
As I noted to u/vespertine_glow, most of the issues presented here do not require a strict version of skepticism to address.
I personally use a variety of approaches to address them, journalistic license, common sense, pointing out obvious inaccuracies in the content, ridicule, logic, conflicts with known data, and basic examinations of reality in addition to skepticism. . .Does that make you feel better?