"We should not, however, cover up, hide, suppress or, worst of all, use the state to quash someone else's belief system. There are several good arguments for this:
• 1. They might be right and we would have just squashed a bit of truth.
• 2. They might be completely wrong, but in the process of examining their claims we discover the truth; we also discover how thinking can go wrong, and in the process improve our thinking skills.
• 3. In science, it is never possible to know the absolute truth about anything, and so we must always be on the alert for where our ideas need to change.
• 4. Being tolerant when you are in the believing majority means you have a greater chance of being tolerated when you are in the skeptical minority. Once censorship of ideas is established, it can work against you if and when you find yourself in the minority."
I could not agree more with Michael Shermer on this point.
But when you read the rest of his article, you quickly discover that he uses the label 'denier' to shut down debate with anyone who happens to be more skeptical than he is. He tries to dress up his 'ad hominem' mistake by dressing up his subjective definition of when a skeptic can be labeled a 'denier' with a veneer of 'objectivity'. But in the end, he naturally uses himself as the 'objective' measure of a proper amount of skepticism. If you are more skeptical of things on his favorite topics, then you are automatically labeled a 'denier.' But defining truth around yourself and your own conclusions shows an unfortunate lack of epistemological rigor. But then again, maybe he is just showing everyone how 'New Scientist' is really just an opinion and editorial publication, within a well crafted scientific shell.