The Definition of Skepticism

arthwollipot

Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
arthwollipot
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
97,300
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.
 
arthwollipot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's an American vs English thing, but as I hear it "critical" implies something is very important. Critical thinking is seen as something good, even by people who, let's say, don't practice it much themselves, while as zooterkin says, "skepticism" connotes grumpy downers who exist to turn down the music at the party.
 
arthwollipot said:
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?
Click to expand...

All three senses work. The situational thing: I'm skeptical about this specific thing. The philosophic-wanking thing. And the scientific skepticism thing, the evidence thing.

While all three senses are valid, surely it's obvious that the last is what the S in ISF stands for?

eta: Not criticizing asking the question. I guess, to me, critical thinking, like others have said. Which translates to evidence, as seen through reason. All that.
 
Last edited:
For me, critical thinking is closely tied to formal logic, specifically how to pull out the structure of an argument, identify the premises, and determine if any of the steps are formal/informal fallacies of reasoning.

Note that an argument can be completely cogent, but still not of any value because the premises are flawed.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Maybe it's an American vs English thing, but as I hear it "critical" implies something is very important. Critical thinking is seen as something good, even by people who, let's say, don't practice it much themselves, while as zooterkin says, "skepticism" connotes grumpy downers who exist to turn down the music at the party.
Click to expand...
That's a different definition of the word, though. We're not using the word as in "this is a critical piece of infrastructure". If I say that I am critically examining a claim, in my experience people assume that I am criticising that claim - ie, finding fault with it.

We're using the word in the academic sense, like we would if we were criticising literature. Not finding fault, but, as @novaphile says, deconstructing it, examining it, and evaluating it. And certainly some people in academia would automatically assume that this is the default meaning of the word, most people (again, in my experience) don't.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
On the Science subforum, a member has just scornfully dismissed the concept of following the evidence as "fapping over data."
Skepticism and critical thinking are dying a slow death here.
Click to expand...
And you are at liberty to give your opinion in response. Does that member have some special status that means what they say has authority, or that they speak for the forum as a whole?
 
zooterkin said:
And you are at liberty to give your opinion in response. Does that member have some special status that means what they say has authority, or that they speak for the forum as a whole?
Click to expand...
I took the silence following that comment as acceptance by the forum as a whole.
And yes, I believe that there is a hierarchy in this forum, and I am the bottom of the pile.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I took the silence following that comment as acceptance by the forum as a whole
Click to expand...
I don’t know which thread that is, but it is possible that the participants in that thread viewed the comment positively, or that they gave up protesting against a poster who is beyond reach.

There is not my to my knowledge a change in view on skepticism among the majority of members here, but there are differences in interpretation that the present thread is addressing. Although there will never be a consensus.
 
Okay, I've read the other thread as well, now. And here's what I think: we can manage without, sure: but, on the other hand, there's no reason why we shouldn't put up a definition, or at least a description, up on the site, of what exactly we mean by skepticism.

I mean, think of some random person landing on the site following a search. He says, Oh, I'm on a Skeptics forum, am I? So what is that, exactly? ...No reason why he should have to go through multiple threads, and lots of contentious discussions, or himself go searching away online, in order to arrive at at least an approximate idea of what we mean when we say this is a skeptics' forum. No reason why we can't directly tell him that.

("Approximate", given that there's zero chance of us all agreeing about anything under the sun, including how a definition or description of skepticism should look like! But an approximate agreement is probably doable, maybe in this thread itself.)
 
arthwollipot said:
There are many reasons to not reply to something apart from agreeing with it. Sometimes, you just do not want to feed a troll. Maybe you don't want to get drawn into an argument. Sometimes you just don't care enough.
Click to expand...

And sometimes you haven't the time. Or maybe haven't seen the discussion!

Heh, skepticism lesson right there: question your assumptions! People haven't fallen over themselves expressing their agreement with me, does NOT necessarily equal People don't agree with me.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I took the silence following that comment as acceptance by the forum as a whole.
And yes, I believe that there is a hierarchy in this forum, and I am the bottom of the pile.
Click to expand...
I do not spend much time in the science section. I don't have much to add, usually before the thread degrades into two people nitpicking at each other.
It's not like I can discuss philosophy with anyone either. Just not within my abilities.

I see so much stuff on this site, said by many that makes no sense in my world. I rarely argue with any of them as it won't change anything. Just the diversity that is being human.
 
Chanakya said:
And sometimes you haven't the time. Or maybe haven't seen the discussion!

Heh, skepticism lesson right there: question your assumptions! People haven't fallen over themselves expressing their agreement with me, does NOT necessarily equal People don't agree with me.
Click to expand...

This is so ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up. No wonder we never agree with one another here. I mean, I'm finding myself disagreeing with myself here!

Is it true what I said above? That <People haven't expressed agreement with me> =/= <People don't agree with me>?

In connection with a discussion, on another thread, on whether God exists --- yes, yes, I know, I know! --- it now occurs to me, that while what I said above may be true in a very technical, a legalistically-literal way: but functionally it isn't actually true.

If I haven't seen anyone express agreement with me, then while, sure, it's possible that there's someone out there, maybe whole multitudes out there, who secretly, silently, agree with me: but it does seem reasonable to take this absence of evidence to mean that no one agrees with me.

So yeah, scratch out what I'd said above. I was wrong. I think?
 
If another poster is already saying exactly what I would say I don't usually agree, or say it again. I might hit like, now that's an option. I only tend to add my own thoughts to a thread if I think I do actually have something additional to say.
 
Should really be in a thread in FMF but if folks want to come up with a replacement/expansion for the "The International Skeptics Forum is an online community dedicated to fostering critical thinking and skepticism." sentence that is on the forum homepage I'll change it.
 
arthwollipot said:
It is true.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know.

I mean, at one level, obviously it is true. Which is why I said what I originally did, agreeing with you. Absolutely, people oftentimes don't speak up aloud, for a number of reasons, like not wanting to feed a troll, like not caring enough to, like not having the time, like not having even seen some particular (portion of some particular) discussion, etc.

On the other hand, there's this, right? In another thread, we were at yet another installment of that old chestnut, how you can tell if there's God, yadda yadda yadda. And well, what I said there, does apply to all things. That we haven't yet seen evidence of God, while that might simply be because there's a God that hasn't left evidence, or that has left evidence that we haven't yet seen, but still, functionally, it does tantamount to us concluding, quite reasonably, that there's no God. And again, us not accepting that claim, the claim that God exists, is functionally equivalent to us rejecting that claim, right?

So, likewise here? Take this piece of thinking through on this post of mine --- which, heh, is obvious enough, but still --- and say no-one at all responds to this. While at one level that does not necessarily speak to whether others have read this and have not agreed with it, as discussed in the paragraph preceding, sure: but if I don't find evidence of people having agreed with this, then it does seem reasonable for me not to leap to the conclusion that people have agreed and are silent about it. Which is functionally equivalent to my not believing that others have agreed with me, absent evidence of their having done so.

So yeah, that's why I came back to post that ...correction? ...or, at any rate, afterthought? ...to what I'd myself said earlier.



eta: Come to think of it, what this amounts to is that, for precisely this reason, if we see a contentious discussion ---- contentious certainly in terms of feathers being ruffled, but contentious also in terms of people talking very amicably and agreeably but disagreeing squarely about something --- when we see such, and when we are clear in our own mind about which side is right, and we have good reasons for thinking that, then, rather than not speaking out at all, we might just make known our opinion, even if briefly. That way the "correct" opinion gets more weight, and the discussion itself probably is benefited, even if we aren't necessarily saying anything new. (Cue people "liking" this post of mine in vast numbers!)
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Should really be in a thread in FMF but if folks want to come up with a replacement/expansion for the "The International Skeptics Forum is an online community dedicated to fostering critical thinking and skepticism." sentence that is on the forum homepage I'll change it.
Click to expand...

"Critical thinking and skepticism" does cover it. But yeah, absolutely, it might not hurt to spell out what that actually amounts to. It's obvious enough, but then again clearly there's times when it isn't actually obvious. Can't hurt to add a sentence or two expanding on that brief and otherwise perfectly fine descriptor there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom