Science as a discipline does not just encourage question, it requires skepticism. Yet, those skeptical of the claims of (certain) mainstream science are dogged for straying off the farm. It is a difficult thing to establish global temperature trends in the first place. Having noted that this is a phenomena occurring pretty much throughout the solar system, why then is it implausible to suggest that we be skeptical of assured claims that the global warming we are seeing on this particular planet is of human origin? Likewise with evolution, I’m frankly skeptical that we understand all the mechanisms driving evolutionary change. In fact, I think major insights are still to be found, which is to my view is essentially the crux of the ID claim. Yet, every claim of non-orthodoxy in that field as well, is met with ostracism and scorn.
Given that skepticism is a key ingredient to being a good scientist, doesn’t that strike one as something which should cause cognitive dissonance?
Could it be that the origins of the defensive reaction (ostracism and scorn) be cultural? Something to do with division (bad) vs difference (good)?