Scientists are trained to be professional skeptics: to always judge the validity of a claim or finding on the basis of objective, empirical evidence. They are not cynics; they just ask themselves and each other a lot of questions. If they see a claim that a finding is true, they will ask: 'Why'' They may hypothesize that if that finding is true, then some related findings must also be true. If it's unclear whether one or more of those other findings is true, they will do more work to find out. Dogmatism is the opposite of skepticism. It is the proclivity to assert opinions as unequivocally true without taking account of contrary evidence or the contradictory findings. It is why public debate over scientific findings never seems to go away. An example of the difference is the reaction to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's finding in 1995 that 'evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.' The IPCC's assessment reports involve hundreds of researchers...
learn more
