I noticed that some deniers call themselves skeptics. There is a distinctive difference between these two concepts. Skeptics look at a claim, then evaluate the claim through scientific multiple testing and confirmed by many other investigators. If a claim is found wanting, the skeptic will indicate why the claim is partially or totally invalid.
In contrast. the denier is one who hangs on to his/her opinion in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I will illustrate this with a few examples.
- Climate Change. The evidence is, recognized by not only the great majority of the experts in the field but also many governments world wide, now established. Still there are many people, many non-experts or persons lacking the knowledge to judge the scientific research, as well as some scientists funded by organizations wanting to protect their businesses, and people with cognitive dissonance, who deny scientific facts, who call themselves skeptics. They are not
- Evolution vs Creationism. The skeptics of creationism rely on the overwhelming evidence supporting their theories, obtained in archaeology, anthropology and DNA research. The creationist, ignoring these findings and who declare that creationism is a reality, without any scientific proof is not a skeptic either but also a denier.