Being skeptical of skepticism?

[tyr_13]

Ummmmm....Limbo, you do know that skeptics want proof right? I mean, if you found evidence, "in places skeptics never go," just bring the skeptic the evidence. If you want a skeptic to accept something not based on evidence, then you aren't presenting evidence, you're not, "thinking outside the box," your just changing the game.

Your basic argument is that skepticism is wrong, because it rejects personal bias. "You have to experience it to believe it," isn't something that is said about air foils for example.

"Probably hard for skeptics to put themselves in that someones shoes and walk an imaginary mile. Until they can do that, they can't be "skeptical of skepticism". IMO." Besides the shear nuttiness of the phrase, "skeptical of skepticism," (based on my personal experience with the English language), I happen to be a former 'believer' who through diverse research...research which is tempered by personal experience, wisdom, has found skepticism to be of great value in general.

Maybe some skeptics aren't listening to your 'evidence,' and maybe your 'evidence' just isn't any good. Both probably happen, neither has much to do with being skeptical.

EDIT: Oh, and if someone really KNEW skeptics were wrong and KNEW how, it wouldn't be that hard to lay out the evidence and convince at least some of them. However, you are confusing the words KNOW, and BELIEVE.

 

[Limbo]

I mean, if you found evidence, "in places skeptics never go," just bring the skeptic the evidence.

Let me stop you right there. I never said I was that someone.

 

[Dogdoctor]

There are no standards in skepticism so everything is scrutinized. To take something for granted is not skepticism so one needs to question how to best use skepticism and in that manner question skepticism itself.

 

[CFLarsen]

Read it again. Slowly.

He doubts that such a situation would occur, given that he has no prior examples, because... surprise surprise ... it has served well so far.

Good grief Claus, this is really simple stuff.

So?

You are trying to create a problem that just isn't there.

 

[Gravy]

I see that you chose not to answer the questions you raised, Alex. I'll give your posts a pass then. Good luck with your troubles.

 

[chillzero]

So?

You are trying to create a problem that just isn't there.

Excuse me, but you are the one asking for an example of something that a poster clearly indicated had not happened.

 

[CFLarsen]

Excuse me, but you are the one asking for an example of something that a poster clearly indicated had not happened.

But not that it would never happen. Hence my question.

Aren't you going to comment on Shermer's article?

 

[chillzero]

But not that it would never happen. Hence my question.

So you disingenuously asked for evidence of something you knew could not be supplied, even though that was the actual point that was being made?

Or were you disingenuously asking for an example of something that had clearly not yet occurred - therefore no example currently exists?

Aren't you going to comment on Shermer's article?

Why? I was interested in the OP:

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

I think every skeptic should be skeptical of their own skepticism, or the points of belief that their skepticism has brought them to. The point of skepticism is to examine evidence, and to be aware of the possibility that new evidence may arise to refute their current understanding. A skeptic's true viewpoint on any issue should never be an absolute, as there is no such position as definitive knowledge; only interpretation of the currently available evidence.

So, in that respect, I guess I concur with the article, and specifically:

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.​

​

​

It's just ironic that you asked Tricky for an example of when evidence is insufficient for the purposes of skepticism, given your own summary of that article:

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

You were essentially saying the exact same thing.

 

[CFLarsen]

So you disingenuously asked for evidence of something you knew could not be supplied, even though that was the actual point that was being made?

Or were you disingenuously asking for an example of something that had clearly not yet occurred - therefore no example currently exists?

No, I asked Tricky if he could give an example, if said situation would occur. Nothing disingenuous in that.

Why? I was interested in the OP:

I think every skeptic should be skeptical of their own skepticism, or the points of belief that their skepticism has brought them to. The point of skepticism is to examine evidence, and to be aware of the possibility that new evidence may arise to refute their current understanding. A skeptic's true viewpoint on any issue should never be an absolute, as there is no such position as definitive knowledge; only interpretation of the currently available evidence.

So, in that respect, I guess I concur with the article, and specifically:

Whoa, that's two different things: Being skeptical of the evidence, and being skeptical of skepticism itself.

Can you explain how you can be skeptical of skepticism - without being a solipsist, of course?

Or, perhaps that's what you are, more than a skeptic? E.g., do you doubt your own existence?

It's just ironic that you asked Tricky for an example of when evidence is insufficient for the purposes of skepticism, given your own summary of that article:

You were essentially saying the exact same thing.

So? I asked Tricky, because I can't read his mind. And neither can you.

 

[chillzero]

Whoa, that's two different things: Being skeptical of the evidence, and being skeptical of skepticism itself.

Can you explain how you can be skeptical of skepticism - without being a solipsist, of course?

Or, perhaps that's what you are, more than a skeptic? E.g., do you doubt your own existence?

No I don't, nor is that what I said.

My point was to be skeptical of the position to which skepticism brings you. i.e. just because you can call yourself a skeptic, and come to a position based on evidence, does not necessarily make that position 100% tenable for all time to come. You should never admanatly assert that skepticism means the position you hold is correct and will never be disproven; although it may be very very unlikely. Skepticism is about being open to new information and evidence, and as such a skeptic should be prepared to re-evaluate what skepticism brings them.

 

[CFLarsen]

No I don't, nor is that what I said.

My point was to be skeptical of the position to which skepticism brings you. i.e. just because you can call yourself a skeptic, and come to a position based on evidence, does not necessarily make that position 100% tenable for all time to come. You should never admanatly assert that skepticism means the position you hold is correct and will never be disproven; although it may be very very unlikely. Skepticism is about being open to new information and evidence, and as such a skeptic should be prepared to re-evaluate what skepticism brings them.

Quite agree. But, again, that is being skeptical of the evidence. That is not being skeptical about skepticism itself.

So, the question still stands: How can you be skeptical of skepticism?

You said we can - and, as skeptics, should. How?

 

[chillzero]

Quite agree. But, again, that is being skeptical of the evidence. That is not being skeptical about skepticism itself.

No, skepticism is the process we use to garner and evaluate the evidence. That process may be flawed, and indeed many skeptics come to different conclusions given the same evidence. Therefore, a skeptic should be skeptical that their process / method / use of skepticism is automatically the right one.

So, the question still stands: How can you be skeptical of skepticism?

You said we can - and, as skeptics, should. How?

By not assuming that calling yourself a skeptic makes you immediately more right than anyone else.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, skepticism is the process we use to garner and evaluate the evidence. That process may be flawed, and indeed many skeptics come to different conclusions given the same evidence. Therefore, a skeptic should be skeptical that their process / method / use of skepticism is automatically the right one.

No, the process is the same. Whatever conclusion is made is purely up to the individual. Randi, Radin and Schwartz may apply skepticism to their research, but that doesn't mean that the conclusion they come to will always be the same.

It doesn't mean they are all equally right: It just means that they draw different conclusions. If they go with the evidence, then they are skeptics. If they don't, they are not.

By not assuming that calling yourself a skeptic makes you immediately more right than anyone else.

But that only adresses what people claim: To be skeptics. Not what skepticism is: A method.

So, the question still stands: How can you be skeptical of skepticism?

 

[chillzero]

No, the process is the same.

Clearly not.

Whatever conclusion is made is purely up to the individual. Randi, Radin and Schwartz may apply skepticism to their research, but that doesn't mean that the conclusion they come to will always be the same.

Precisely. Multiple people apply skepticism, but that application - i.e. what each individual terms skepticism varies. Therefore no one can assume their particular personalised brand of applied skepticism is the most valid.

 

[CFLarsen]

Clearly not.

Precisely. Multiple people apply skepticism, but that application - i.e. what each individual terms skepticism varies. Therefore no one can assume their particular personalised brand of applied skepticism is the most valid.

Wait a second.

Are you saying that, well, "to each his own"? Everyone will have his own brand of skepticism, and all are equally valid, when it comes to describing the world as it is - not as we see it?

There is no generally agreed-upon definition of what skepticism is?

 

[chillzero]

Not really, no.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not really, no.

Then, how can we ever reach a provisional conclusion based on anything else than our own perception of what the world is, and what skepticism is?

You are, in effect, saying that there is no world outside your - as in your, chillzero's - perception of the world. There are no natural laws, only our own perceptions of them. And each are equally valid, because it all depends on our own personal perception of them.

 

[chillzero]

uummm... yeah .... that's exactly what I said.

 

[CFLarsen]

uummm... yeah .... that's exactly what I said.

I take it from the ironic smiley that it is not what you said.

If that is the case, then explain what you mean. I can't guess what you mean, and I certainly can't read your mind.

Of course, it it isn't the case...you got a problem. Big problem.

 

[Alex Libman]

Get used to that emoticon, socialists. Unless you learn to respect the rights of others and be skeptical of government force, you will have cause to be using it a lot in the future!