• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Definition of Skepticism

arthwollipot

Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
arthwollipot
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
102,540
Location
Ngunnawal Country
What is the definition of skepticism? Or scepticism if you prefer the Commonwealth spelling.

Is it doubting every claim that crosses your path? Is it critically examining the evidence to confirm or refute a claim?

On forum called "International Skeptics Forum" it's important to actually understand what the word means, surely?
 
To me it means using logic, evidence and heuristics to come to conclusions about reality.

The opposite of skepticism/scepticism is to believe in incoherent, unevidenced or outlandish beliefs because in some way they might be more attractive or because the thinker is unaware of cognitive biases etc...
 
Scientific Skepticism is the process of analytical and critical thought used to determine the veracity of claims. Scientific Skeptics aim to have an awareness of the scientific method, and the various cognitive biases and logical fallacies, and use this awareness to assess matters presented as fact.
 
An important aspect of skepticism is it's open-endedness: even subjects considered settled can and should be reexamined given new evidence.
It's a process to rank the level of trust we should have that our best current assumptions on a topic are probably going to stay correct, and to identify what would benefit most from further study. Most importantly, it helps rank the quality of the evidence, which is necessary to know how to adjust our priors.

Most importantly, done right it's a self-correcting process that works even if there are no rules about it set in stone. There is nothing wrong with applying different standards for different subjects depending on how critical they are.

We should also always keep in mind that it is a self-limiting process in what it can study; and it can be very inefficient.
 
This is where the lack of a good working search is so bloody frustrating. We've had a lot of discussions about this topic going back to the very first weeks of the forum going live. I'm looking at the results of using a tag search for the tag scepticism. I'll drag over any posts I think are interesting during today.
 
arthwollipot said:
Until search is fixed, new threads are all we have.
Click to expand...
I am slightly sceptical of that...

For instance you can use tags -: https://internationalskeptics.com/forums/index.php?tags/skepticism/

And for the areas you can view without logging in you can use one of the standard search engines, for instance in a google search you can use something like "site:internationalskeptics.com darat "definition of skepticism""

Not as good as having a good local search but it's still useful.

And I'm not arguing against you starting a new thread, just that we've had some cracks of this before and we should stand on the shoulders of giants!
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Not as good as having a good local search but it's still useful.
Click to expand...
I have found both of these solutions distinctly less than useful. But we're getting off-topic.
Darat said:
And I'm not arguing against you starting a new thread, just that we've had some cracks of this before and we should stand on the shoulders of giants!
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to go back through the forum's 25-year history and see how different things were back then.
 
arthwollipot said:
What is the definition of skepticism? Or scepticism if you prefer the Commonwealth spelling.
Click to expand...
It's going to vary by context and respondent.

arthwollipot said:
Is it doubting every claim that crosses your path? Is it critically examining the evidence to confirm or refute a claim?
Click to expand...
There are proponents of both approaches. Some more cynical than others.

arthwollipot said:
On forum called "International Skeptics Forum" it's important to actually understand what the word means, surely?
Click to expand...
This seems far too much like gatekeeping, to me. The last thing this forum needs is more "you're doing it wrong" and "that's not how we define it here".

You have a notion of what sound reasoning looks like. When you see unsound reasoning, you can critique it according to that notion, without getting into a slapfight about terminology and definitions. If someone is begging the questeion, you can just point that out. You don't have to sidetrack into "that's not skepticism".

Don't get sidetracked by attempts to change the subject to a definition of skepticism. Stay focused on the merits of the argument itself: The premises, the evidence, the reasoning, the conclusion. Put your effort into modeling good skepticism, not getting other people to agree with your definition of it.


As an aside, I think "scientific skepticism" is a poor choice of words. That said, also think the scientific method can be translated to a more general set of rationally skeptical practices:
  • Form testable hypotheses
  • Test the hypotheses you form
  • Provisionally accept the results of your tests
  • The strength of the results are proportional to the strength of your tests; learn to design strong tests
  • Avoid reaching conclusions when you have no test results or no testable hypothesis
  • Ask people to show their work (premises, evidence, reasoning, conclusions) before accepting their claims
  • Remember that life's too short to make this your entire personality, or even your entire persona. Go outside and touch grass from time to time.
 
I think in the context of this board, and James Randi a skeptic is someone who approaches a claim with an open mind. They examine the claim by investigating the data, and the context. They do their best to reach a conclusion by staying within the bounds of science and logic.

Is that how is goes on a consistent basis? No, not always, but it depends on the claim being made. Not all claims are equal. Flat Earthers and Moonlandings-Were-Hoax'ers do not rate the same respect as someone who has doubts or questions about why the World Trade Center-7 collapsed, or if masks were effective against COVID to a measurable degree. Those first two topics are by definition moronic, while the last two are complex to answer, even if the answer is WTC-7 collapsed after a long fire, and it really comes down to the quality if mask you wore, and the conditions in which you wear it.

We've reached an era of stupid. Gone are the serious members who filled the 911 CT forums with long, thoughtful debates full of physics, and science on both sides. I think they got tired of arguing null points with people who were "Just Asking Questions" but not looking for real answers. And we don't get the true believers coming in here with their bigfoot stories, or holistic health cures like we used to. They don't have to prove anything in 2025. The UFO crowd has claimed victory in spite of zero evidence with worthless congressional hearings, and a Pentagon task force that will waste money not finding aliens. RFK Jr. Is is the director of HHS, and it's going the way you'd think it would.
 
Axxman300 said:
I think in the context of this board, and
James Randi a skeptic is someone who approaches a claim with an open mind. They examine the claim by investigating the data, and the context. They do their best to reach a conclusion by staying within the bounds of science and logic.
Is that how is goes on a consistent basis? No, not always, but it depends on the claim being made. Not all claims are equal. Flat Earthers and Moonlandings-Were-Hoax'ers do not rate the same respect as someone who has doubts or questions about why the World Trade Center-7 collapsed, or if masks were effective against COVID to a measurable degree. Those first two topics are by definition moronic, while the last two are complex to answer, even if the answer is WTC-7 collapsed after a long fire, and it really comes down to the quality if mask you wore, and the conditions in which you wear it.

We've reached an era of stupid. Gone are the serious members who filled the 911 CT forums with long, thoughtful debates full of physics, and science on both sides. I think they got tired of arguing null points with people who were "Just Asking Questions" but not looking for real answers. And we don't get the true believers coming in here with their bigfoot stories, or holistic health cures like we used to. They don't have to prove anything in 2025. The UFO crowd has claimed victory in spite of zero evidence with worthless congressional hearings, and a Pentagon task force that will waste money not finding aliens. RFK Jr. Is is the director of HHS, and it's going the way you'd think it would.
Click to expand...
Sure, but this is where I would say the heuristics come in. It's one thing to investigate something using science and logic, but we are not going to offer the same credulity to someone who says they saw an alien space craft if we also know they had a history of dishonest claims. Similarly, Carl Sagan pointed out that UFO magazines also had a lot of adverts that we should be able to recognize as preying on the gullible such as foolproof ways to win the lottery, etc...
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Does anyone here believe that it's just about doubting everything you come across?
Click to expand...
Here, no. Amongst the general population, yeah it's an attitude that I've definitely encountered. Usually it's people accusing me of it when I say I'm a skeptic.

"I'm a skeptic."
"Oh, so you just doubt everything you come across. That's not very rational is it?"

Also reflected in the old "joke":
"I'm a skeptic."
"I doubt that."
 
arthwollipot said:
Here, no. Amongst the general population, yeah it's an attitude that I've definitely encountered. Usually it's people accusing me of it when I say I'm a skeptic.

"I'm a skeptic."
"Oh, so you just doubt everything you come across. That's not very rational is it?"

Also reflected in the old "joke":
"I'm a skeptic."
"I doubt that."
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry, I realised I should have qualified that after I posted. I meant, in the context of this forum, i.e. a sceptics' forum.
As for not here, as you know, that is not entirely true, and was the impetus for me starting this discussion. This is a truth not universally acknowledged.
 
I would prefer something like "empirical scepticism" rather than "scientific scepticism", it's not all about science, it is all about the evidence.
 
I think that 'critical thinking' is a better label, in general, especially since 'skepticism' has been tarnished by association with terms like "climate skeptic".

(And, personally, I prefer to spell it with a 'k' when talking about the concept or associated movement, because from a British point of view it does make it slightly clearer what's being written about.)
 
zooterkin said:
I think that 'critical thinking' is a better label, in general, especially since 'skepticism' has been tarnished by association with terms like "climate skeptic".
Click to expand...
I don't. I think that when the average person hears "critical thinking" they equate it with "criticism" and nobody likes to be criticised. You still end up having to explain what you really mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom