Being skeptical of skepticism?

[chillzero]

Appeal to popularity.

Not at all. It's just something else simple that you can't seem to grasp. Some efforts require demand - and more demand than 1.

How do you question and examine skepticism itself?

Already answered.

 

[CFLarsen]

Already answered.

No, you didn't answer the question. You merely said that you question and examine how you come to conclusion. That is what skepticism is - not how you are skeptical of skepticism itself.

I really don't think you understand the difference. Oh, well.

 

[chillzero]

I'll refer you again to John's article

 

[Tricky]

For me the two are inter-related.

They're inter-related in that they are opposites. Asking for evidence means you do not trust your gut feeling, regardless of how strong, but instead, require evidence. That is what skepticism advocates.

If you were "skeptical" of this method, that would mean that you doubt that asking for evidence is the best method for determining truth. (I put "skeptical" in quotes in this paragraph, because I am using it in the sense purely of doubt, not of asking for evidence. Otherwise, you get trapped in the logic loop of asking for evidence of the utility of asking for evidence.)

Now I understand that you are saying that you use a mixture of both evidence and gut-feeling when evaluating the truth of a proposition. But are you really? So called "intuition" is not as simple as it might seem. In truth, your intuition may be based on experience, sensory clues, even subconscious analysis of evidence. Intuition becomes much better the more you know about something.

For example, you could take a person who knew nothing about horses which horse (of a group of horses he was seeing for the very first time) would win a race, their picks would probably perform no better than random. If you asked an experienced horse-racing fan the same thing, showing him horses he had never seen before and knew nothing of their records, he would almost certainly perform much better, simply because he would pick up evidence just by looking at them. He might not even realize he was doing this and call it "gut feeling", but in this case, "gut feeling" is still based on evidence.

Is that person a skeptic, just because he is relying on evidence to make his picks? Not necessarily. A skeptic is aware that he is using evidence and indeed strives to identify and evaluate that evidence. All things being equal, the skeptic and the non-skeptic gamblers would perform about the same if they were evaluating the same evidence. The difference would be that the skeptic could consciously learn from this experience and consciously apply it to future situations.

One of the advantages of skepticism is that, on the whole, skeptics, by consciously engaging their brains, will learn faster than those who use their "gut" as a repository of knowledge.

 

[beeksc1]

[In response to original post.]
Yes.
Being skeptical doesn't mean doubting everything. It means demanding evidence.
I'm skeptical of leprechauns and conclude they don't exist.
I'm skeptical of heliocentrism and conclude it's true.
I'm skeptical of string theory and conclude I don't know.
The evidence shows that skepticism works.
That's why I'm a skeptic, because it works and other approaches don't.

Yeah, I mostly agree with what you have to share with that one. And skepticism can mean slightly different things, depending on its context. But to say that skepticism is to demand evidence, I think falls short. I would say that skepticism is an evaluation of the evidence. In quantum theory and in the neuro-cognitive sciences (and all sciences in general) there most always is evidence that supports one theory and there is other evidence that supports an opposing theory; and often, there is more evidence that supports both theories. And sometimes, there is evidence to support neither of the leading theories.

And I do not like labels, I would not call myself a skeptic; I know I am skeptical of mainstream forms of thinking, I am etc. But I do not even like to call myself a student of the behavioral sciences. I am ok with "I am an artist; I am a player of instrument"; but, before we are artists, we are human. We observe, we reason, and we create. I am just a human being.

And the essence of skepticism is inquiry.

 

[Piggy]

But to say that skepticism is to demand evidence, I think falls short. I would say that skepticism is an evaluation of the evidence. In quantum theory and in the neuro-cognitive sciences (and all sciences in general) there most always is evidence that supports one theory and there is other evidence that supports an opposing theory; and often, there is more evidence that supports both theories. And sometimes, there is evidence to support neither of the leading theories.

Well, yeah, of course you're going to evaluate the evidence. That's certainly true.

And as you point out, evaluating it doesn't mean you're going to be able to come to a conclusion all the time.

And the essence of skepticism is inquiry.

I don't think so. The 9/11 kooks who are "just asking questions" are all into inquiry. But they don't listen to any of the answers.

 

[drkitten]

And the essence of skepticism is inquiry.

No. The essence of skepticism is listening to the answers that inquiry generates.


I saw a great T-shirt once. On the front it said "QUESTION AUTHORITY." On the back it said "BUT WHEN AUTHORITY ANSWERS, LISTEN"

 

[beeksc1]

Yes, the essence of skepticism is inquiry. Please , do not reference 9-11 "truthers"; they do not represent a generalizable population; small minority.

I mostly agree with that first paragraph; but the point is that (just like another idea, concept, term) skepticism embodies a multidimensional idea: question (or hypothesis), prediction, try it out, compute, current data either supports hypothesis or contradicts hypothesis, conclude, put conclusion in context with the already established body of evidence, postulate about further directions. Start the process over again; question...

So yes, skepticism and empiricism do involve evaluation, testing it out, analyzing the statistical significance, but without the question: the evaluation, the experiment, the statistical analysis, and the body of empirical evidence would reasonable cease to exist.

Even though it involves many other dimensions and subsequent steps, the nature of skepticism in an edified inquiry.

 

[Alex Libman]

But not as "bribes." The years and costs are R&D. The usual reason that a drug fails to be approved is not due to lack of drugs, but due to lack of provable safety and efficacy.

Please at least try to do a bit of research before claiming to understand the effects of government regulation.

Red tape can be a good thing, if the alternative is people selling poisonous snake oil out of the back of their unlicensed and dangerous cars.

Government does not hold the monopoly on truth, only on force.

Please read the above sentence 100 times a day if that's what it takes for it to sink in.

do not reference 9-11 "truthers"; they do not represent a generalizable population; small minority.

In America, maybe only a third of the population (not counting those smart enough to keep their mouth shut, like most of my friends), but in many countries 9/11 has become somewhat of an open joke. It seems obvious to most people who don't drink the American MSM kool-aid that "19 A-rabs" didn't do this. The countries where you will find the most people believing the official story are Muslim countries where people like to think it proves Allah's divine intervention... Only the Koran-thumpers and the government-thumpers and fooled.

Really? Did you study "AnCap philosophy" for years before you understood it?

Yes, and I'm still undecided about a great deal of things.

 

[Tricky]

Government does not hold the monopoly on truth, only on force.

Please read the above sentence 100 times a day if that's what it takes for it to sink in.

That's silly. If government held a monopoly on force, there would be no crime.

And nobody holds a monopoly on truth. It is there for anyone who wants to search for evidence. Of course, sometimes the search is difficult.

Frankly, I don't want such silliness to sink in.

 

[Marrena]

I think this says it all, at least when it comes to medical research

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/1/113

 

[technoextreme]

It seems obvious to most people who don't drink the American MSM kool-aid that "19 A-rabs" didn't do this.

To quote yourself the government doesn't hold the monopoly on truth and unfortunately for you I know plenty of engineers who would have no qualms saying your are wrong.

Please at least try to do a bit of research before claiming to understand the effects of government regulation.

I completely understand the effects of government regulation. Reality is as far as you can get from your deluded fantasy.

 

[Piggy]

It seems obvious to most people who don't drink the American MSM kool-aid that "19 A-rabs" didn't do this.

This gets me wondering... is there something like an "absolute stupid"? You know, like absolute zero, where it can't get any colder... is there a limit to dumb? Or is that an infinite trajectory?

Just asking questions here.

 

[Brian-M]

I'd really like Alex Libman to explain how it's possible for an anarcho-capitalist society to avoid becoming a de-facto plutocracy, and how he distinguishes one from the other.

Also, considering that many practitioners are already hawking ineffective/harmful products successfully, I'd like to know how removing government restrictions could possibly improve the situation.

***

Back on topic, I think it's reasonable to be skeptical about the application of skepticism by some people. Specifically, those who demand ever-increasing proof for claims that contradict their opinions, demanding proof of the accuracy of previous proofs in an infinite spiral of increasing scrutiny, while at the same time accepting any and all proof that agrees with their opinions regardless of it's origins. A classic double-standard.

 

[technoextreme]

This gets me wondering... is there something like an "absolute stupid"? You know, like absolute zero, where it can't get any colder... is there a limit to dumb? Or is that an infinite trajectory?

No..... There is no limit unfortunately. Believing in the 9/11 lunacy is not the lowest limit.

 

[drkitten]

Yes, the essence of skepticism is inquiry.

... and here we have proof that you neither understand nor practice skepticism. Having made a wrong statement, having it multiply refuted, you simply repeat the wrong statement.

Please , do not reference 9-11 "truthers"; they do not represent a generalizable population; small minority.

You see, a skeptic would have actually looked at the evidence that the class of 9-11 "truthers" represents, not simply tripped over it and muttered imprecations about all that nasty data messing up his otherwise clean theory.

If there is such a thing as an anti-skeptic, you are one. You practice inquiry, but you never even bother to read the responses. You're not looking for evidence, but for blind validation of your theories, no matter how out of the box wrong they are.

 

[beeksc1]

So, you label this poster (all you want) as a anti-skeptic; good for you.

You're [beeks is] not looking for evidence, but for blind validation of your [his] theories, no matter how out of the box wrong they are.

Ugh, no. If a person cannot acknowledge that skepticism means to question, then that person does not have a firm understanding of semantics.

So, Dr. Kitten is the epitome of skepticism. Dr. K is supreme! Dr. K has uncovered the boundless knowledge and actualizes the fact that there is no limit to knowledge. Dr. K transcends methods that systematically question the mainstream forms of thinking. Dr. K is super-skeptic!

It doesn't take "years of study" to understand AnCap; it takes about ten minutes, after which the utter vacuity is apparent. It takes "years of study" before cognitive dissonance sets in and you force yourself to believe it to justify your wasted effort.

To be skeptical of a certain idea, view, or finding means to question the validity, reliability, legitimacy of that particular ideology, conclusion, or that theory.

 

[Mark Felt]

-snip-

It isn't about asking questions, otherwise certain children would be considered skeptical rather than just asking questions for the hell of it.

It's about asking questions, recieving answers, and attempting to reconcile those answers with what you already know to be fact, rather than what you believe.

 

[CFLarsen]

In America, maybe only a third of the population (not counting those smart enough to keep their mouth shut, like most of my friends), but in many countries 9/11 has become somewhat of an open joke. It seems obvious to most people who don't drink the American MSM kool-aid that "19 A-rabs" didn't do this. The countries where you will find the most people believing the official story are Muslim countries where people like to think it proves Allah's divine intervention... Only the Koran-thumpers and the government-thumpers and fooled.

Wait a second. What is your position on the 9-11 attack? Who was behind it?

Yes, and I'm still undecided about a great deal of things.

And yet, you have the gall to criticize people for not buying into your philosophy? You don't even understand it yourself.

 

[chillzero]

Yes, the essence of skepticism is inquiry.

I agree, but perhaps the term needs to be 'honest enquiry' to satisfy pendants.

I agree that there's a difference between chucking out a batch of questions with no interest in answers like CTists do, and having an approach to matters where inquiry is the first step to making decisions or drawing conclusions.

Yes, we should 'go with the evidence'. However, just having evidence is useless if you aren't willing to question it and what it might imply.