Being skeptical of skepticism?

[beeksc1]

Is there a certain kind of skeptically-minded folk who are skeptical of skepticism? Is it possible to be skeptical of skepticism?

 

[Brian-M]

Is there a certain kind of skeptically-minded folk who are skeptical of skepticism? Is it possible to be skeptical of skepticism?

I'm sure most true believers are skeptical of skeptics skepticism.

 

[Alex Libman]

A lot of tyrannical governments have successfully used science and reason as their motto in rejecting the straw men they've built to represent alternative points of view. Debunk a few faith healers, and suddenly whatever you're pitching seems above reproach. And challenging a scientific dictatorship is a very difficult thing, especially when you're a product of the culture it has affected. (Some of my 9/11 posts satirize this.)

So someone ought to seriously propose some sort of a "Skeptic's Code of Ethics" based on the non-aggression principle. People have a right to be wrong, and to even con fools out of their money and their chances to seek better solutions, as long as they don't initiate force against anyone else. (And, no, "depriving your children of a well-rounded education" is not force.) You can point out that the faith-healer is a quack, but you can't put him out of business by force!

 

[CFLarsen]

Is there a certain kind of skeptically-minded folk who are skeptical of skepticism? Is it possible to be skeptical of skepticism?

This question pops up regularly. Shermer describes it here:

But skepticism as a way of thinking has a long historical tradition that can be traced back at least 2,500 years. The foremost historian of skepticism, Richard Popkin, tells us (1979, p. xiii): “Academic scepticism, so-called because it was formulated in the Platonic Academy in the third century, B.C., developed from the Socratic observation, ‘All I know is that I know nothing.’” Two of the popular received meanings of the word by many people today are that a skeptic believes nothing, or is closed minded to certain beliefs. There is good reason for the perception of the first meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives this common usage for the word skeptic:

One who, like Pyrrho and his followers in Greek antiquity, doubts the possibility of real knowledge of any kind; one who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty as to the truth of any proposition whatever (Vol. 2, p. 2663).​

Since this position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one (except a few confused solipsists who doubt even their own existence), it is no wonder that so many find skepticism disturbing. A more productive meaning of the word skeptic is the second usage given by the OED:

One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry; one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement.​

Source

The answer is, of course: Go with the evidence. Always the evidence.

 

[Gravy]

A lot of tyrannical governments have successfully used science and reason as their motto in rejecting the straw men they've built to represent alternative points of view. Debunk a few faith healers, and suddenly whatever you're pitching seems above reproach.

Can you give some modern examples of this happening?

And challenging a scientific dictatorship is a very difficult thing, especially when you're a product of the culture it has affected. (Some of my 9/11 posts satirize this.)

So someone ought to seriously propose some sort of a "Skeptic's Code of Ethics" based on the non-aggression principle.

Your proposal isn't serious?

People have a right to be wrong, and to even con fools out of their money and their chances to seek better solutions, as long as they don't initiate force against anyone else. (And, no, "depriving your children of a well-rounded education" is not force.) You can point out that the faith-healer is a quack, but you can't put him out of business by force!

If the faith healer is making false medical claims, you put him or her out of business by force of law. I'm all for keeping those laws on the books, and in many cases making them more stringent.

 

[Alex Libman]

Can you give some modern examples of this happening?

I cannot think of any tyrannical society that doesn't claim to use reason, from the Soviets to the Nazis to North Korea to the Islamic dictatorships. (You should hear them "proving" the Koran as 100% scientific - you can't get a science degree there if you don't accept this.)

Your proposal isn't serious?

It's a serious matter, but I'm not the best person to do this, nor do I have the (sober) time.

If the faith healer is making false medical claims, you put him or her out of business by force of law. I'm all for keeping those laws on the books, and in many cases making them more stringent.

Then you're a tyrant, and I'd like to get as far away from your ability to (forcefully) influence my life as possible.

 

[CFLarsen]

People have a right to be wrong,

Where have skeptics argued otherwise?

and to even con fools out of their money and their chances to seek better solutions, as long as they don't initiate force against anyone else. (And, no, "depriving your children of a well-rounded education" is not force.) You can point out that the faith-healer is a quack, but you can't put him out of business by force!

It sounds as if you believe that people are always responsible and think clearly. Is that correct?

 

[Aepervius]

I cannot think of any tyrannical society that doesn't claim to use reason, from the Soviets to the Nazis to North Korea to the Islamic dictatorships. (You should hear them "proving" the Koran as 100% scientific - you can't get a science degree there if you don't accept this.)




It's a serious matter, but I'm not the best person to do this, nor do I have the (sober) time.

If the faith healer is making false medical claims, you put him or her out of business by force of law. I'm all for keeping those laws on the books, and in many cases making them more stringent.

Then you're a tyrant, and I'd like to get as far away from your ability to (forcefully) influence my life as possible.

By your own definition of tyranny and "force" then there is absolutely no "free country" whatsoever, there are only a bunch of tyranny to various degree. What you are requesting is more or less anarchy. If somebody break the law, then your solution is apparently to just tell other people he broke it, and think it will have an effect. This is unfeasible, you have to have a punishment behind the breaking of the law, or there will be no insensitive NOT to break it.

 

[Tricky]

Absolutely. As soon as examining the evidence becomes a bad way to evaluate the truth of a proposition, I will drop it like a hot potato.

 

[kerikiwi]

(You should hear them "proving" the Koran as 100% scientific - you can't get a science degree there if you don't accept this.)

Where, exactly, is 'there'?

 

[Gravy]

Then you're a tyrant

Laws against medical fraud are tyrannical! *Giggles*

and I'd like to get as far away from your ability to (forcefully) influence my life as possible.

Sounds like a plan. Please do!

 

[Mashuna]

Then you're a tyrant, and I'd like to get as far away from your ability to (forcefully) influence my life as possible.

Tell me, where do you expect to go, where there are no laws that could forcefully influence your life?

 

[Alex Libman]

Do you know how many people die while waiting for a drug that could have saved them to get FDA approved?

 

[Big Les]

I'm sceptical of people who are sceptical of scepticism.

Call it a hunch.

 

[H3LL]

The answer is, of course: Go with the evidence. Always the evidence.

Or in your case the evidence that doesn't exist except at some imagined extreme probability at a distant, unknown future date.

Thus changing your "Yes" to a "Maybe".

.

 

[Steelmage]

Or in your case the evidence that doesn't exist except at some imagined extreme probability at a distant, unknown future date.

Thus changing your "Yes" to a "Maybe".

.

So go with the 8-Ball then, .

 

[CFLarsen]

Absolutely. As soon as examining the evidence becomes a bad way to evaluate the truth of a proposition, I will drop it like a hot potato.

Can you give an example?

Or in your case the evidence that doesn't exist except at some imagined extreme probability at a distant, unknown future date.

Thus changing your "Yes" to a "Maybe".

.

Huh? I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[H3LL]

Huh? I don't understand what you are saying.

I know you don't.

.

 

[H3LL]

so Go With The 8-ball Then, .

.

 

[Mashuna]

Do you know how many people die while waiting for a drug that could have saved them to get FDA approved?

Nope.

Is it offset by the number of people that would have died by taking unsafe medication that was subsequently denied FDA approval?