Scepcop wrote:Skeptics, why are there black holes over the poles in these pictures?
Where Scepcop asks: Skeptics, tell me what is really going on here if you're such smarty-pants? I finally figured it out. It is mixing up skepticism with debunking. While some may think that all skeptics do is debunk, that's really not part of skepticism - although a skeptical approach may in fact lead to debunking. The question a skeptic asks himself first when, for example, looking at the video with the black hole at the north pole is: what is the evidence in favour of that hypothesis? How reliable is that evidence? Do the facts support the conclusions? Etc. That is skepticism.
What is really going on is actually a slightly different question. In trying to answer that question one should use a skeptical approach: ie, rely only on reliable evidence, but its not skepticism per se, imo.
What Scepcop really should do is set out why he agrees with the video, and provide his evidence, then challenge the skeptics to evaluate that evidence. A skeptic doesn't need to figure out what's really going on in order to skeptically analyze the argument. That is: I can look at those black holes in those images and note that they look computer generated rather than an actual scanned image. But I don't have to have a fully fleshed out hypothesis of what they actually are to consider myself to be justified in NOT accepting that those circles represent black holes into the core of the earth. All I have to do is note that computer generated images are not sufficient evidence to justify such a belief. There's nothing wrong, of course, of going further, I'm just making the perhaps subtle point that that figuring out is not necessary to be fully skeptical here. I can say I don't know what's going on at the same time as saying that you still haven't made out your case as to what you think is going on.