Final answer:
The student's question asks about the difference between skepticism and denialism. Skepticism involves demanding evidence and maintaining an open-minded but critical approach, while denialism is the rejection of well-established evidence or scientific consensus without sufficient reason, often due to underlying personal motives.
Step-by-step explanation:
The core of the student's question revolves around the distinction between skepticism and denialism within the realm of scientific discussion. Skepticism is an approach that involves demanding evidence and is a critical aspect of the scientific method, often leading to rigorous verification of conclusions. Skeptics typically require substantial proof before accepting a claim and maintain an open-minded but questioning attitude towards new information.
In contrast, denialism refers to the outright rejection of well-established evidence or scientific consensus without sufficient reason. This often occurs due to underlying motives such as religious beliefs, self-interest, or psychological factors, rather than a legitimate critique of the validity or robustness of the evidence. The correct choice to describe denialism, in this case, is when evidence is dismissed without sufficient reason (c). While evidence should be critically evaluated, denialism can lead to dismissing significant data because it goes against one's preconceived notions or interests, which is different from the healthy skepticism that seeks to build a closer proximity to knowledge and truth.
Denialism differs from skepticism in that it takes an unwarranted step beyond cautious inquiry, disregarding overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus, such as in examples like Holocaust denialism, AIDS denialism, and climate change denialism. This rejection of evidence does not fall in line with skeptical inquiry that values evidence and the pursuit of knowledge, instead, it tends to perpetuate pseudoscience and misconceptions.