A critique of skepticism

[CapelDodger]

masterbation?

A kinder soul might suggest "solipsism". But I get your drift.

 

[nosho]

Sorry for my long absence from this thread that I started. I experienced the death of a close family member, and after that, I felt no desire to return to this forum for a while.

I'm back now because you are right, Tricky. I dropped my end of the discussion. Since so many months have passed, there might not be any discussion left to pick up. But for those who might still be interested:

NEX: Thank you for your comments. I think you're right, and I would add the following: It is possible for people to train themselves to apply skepticism and critical thought more skillfully. But only if they are willing to take an honest look at themselves.

COSMO: Thanks for your thoughts. You're absolutely right.

RHARBERS: I appreciate your comments. Can't tell if you're joking or serious. You're right that the meaning of "pseudospeciation" might not be clear to everyone. Definitions can be found elsewhere for those who are confused. I was talking about a method of categorization that could tend to dehumanize others.

EHOBBS: Thanks for your question. When I say that something can be "touched within oneself," I mean it's possible to focus one's attention inward and observe.

PAULIESONNE: Thank you. Your post pulls the rug out from under me, because I honestly don't know how to respond. In other threads, people likewise have sometimes responded with what I view as inappropriate sexual references, and it just stops me cold. The people in my life don't talk to each other that way, because we tend to view it as disrespectful of one another. So when I encounter that kind of stuff here, it's a reminder to me to let go of expectations and lighten up.

PISCIVORE: Thanks for your comment. Not sure I understand your point. Surely we can use our imagination to conceptualize something that might be subject to skepticism. For example, a person 1,000 years ago might have imagined that the Earth is round. Would that have precluded the possibility of that person applying skepticism to the proposition that the Earth is round? We can imagine things that are real as well as things that are not real.

FOWLSOUND: Thank you for a very good point.

MERCUTIO: What a great post. Thanks. If that is the way you see things, then who am I to disagree with you? So let's pick a word. For the purpose of where you seem to be coming from, the best word might be "noumenon." So if that helps in any way to clarify things for you, instead of calling this "no-thing," let's label it "noumenon." Not a perfect label, but maybe one that will help point in the direction of what we're discussing.

SLINGBLADE: You're right, it is a practice. I see it the same way.

T'AI CHI: It was so refreshing to encounter someone who seemed to appreciate some of what I had to say. Thank you!

KOPJI: Thanks for making this point. The opening part of this thread was a kind of provocation. I can't really justify it. Judging from all the responses, I was incorrect.

EPEPKE: Thanks for getting it.

STUPIDQUESTION: Good points about atheism and agnosticism. My comments were intended to describe only possible hindrances that those approaches might present for some people, not for all atheists and agnostics. Generally, I believe that when we cling too tightly to our concepts and insist that we have "made up our mind" and that's the end of the discussion, we've dulled our instrument of skepticism. But I might change my mind about that.

Q-SOURCE: Thanks for the encouragement.

DANCING DAVID: Some very valid counterpoints. Thank you. With regard to scope, I believe it is a dial we should acknowledge, even if we all have different settings for it. With regard to spiritual experience, I think you are right that self-delusion is a hindrance. I think self-delusion is probably the most widespread condition on the planet, regardless of spiritual (or non-spiritual) orientation. We all come to the table with our precious egos. That's why it's important to be skillful with skepticism.

CAPELDODGER: Thanks for adding an interesting point of view. I hadn't thought about solipsism in the context of this discussion.

I appreciate everyone's feedback. A closing thought for this post: Consider the possibility of adjusting the dials of our instrument of skepticism in such a way as to practice skepticism while doubt is absent. This orientation -- skepticism without any factor of doubt -- is the very definition of open-mindedness.

I know this defies common usage of the term "skepticism." Yet that's what we get if the pressure dial (described above) is set at the midpoint, at a state of neither belief nor disbelief.

What is skepticism without doubt?

Peace.

 

[drkitten]

Consider the possibility of adjusting the dials of our instrument of skepticism in such a way as to practice skepticism while doubt is absent.

I considered it.

It didn't take long, because the "possibility" is self-contradictory to the point of being oxymoronic. ("Consider adjusting the dials of our instrument of fear in such a way as to practice being frightened while being scared is absent.") The words have meanings, as as you yourself acknowledge, this violates them, to the point of bleaching all meaning or indeed sense out of them.

This orientation -- skepticism without any factor of doubt -- is the very definition of open-mindedness.

Yet that's what we get if the pressure dial (described above) is set at the midpoint, at a state of neither belief nor disbelief.

No. It's not a question of "pressure dial," but of evidence. If the evidence is not itself set at the midpoint -- if there is a preponderance of evidence to one side or another -- then rationality demands that one follow the evidence. To willfully ignore evidence and to withhold warranted (dis)belief is not open-mindedness.

Should I "neither believe nor disbelieve" that Italy won the World Cup? Why should I consider this still to be questionable?

 

[blutoski]

Very interesting post, nosho.

Many people who consider themselves skeptics have hijacked real skepticism. They proudly call themselves "brights" without noticing that they have just become blind fanatics, acting aggressively to anyone that threatens their belief system.
They have lost (if ever had) the ability to use skepticism as a tool and question everything, including their own beliefs and preconceptions. It doesn´t apply only to the notion of a personal god and the paranormal -which they find an easy target- but to everything, including basic assumptions about the universe.
On the other hand, I think that true skepticism can never die, there will always be people who think out of the box, not only scientists, but philosophers, free thinkers, engineers, etc. Those are the ones who make progress.
Belem

Just to toss in my overall opinion on this type of debate:

1) I'm not convinced that skepticism has been 'hijacked', so much as it's just its usual mix of skeptics and pseudoskeptics. Modern skepticism has a history that includes being founded more or less by atheists (CSICOP remains attached financially and organizationally to Paul Kurtz and the Center for Inquiry), so it's hard to say that this extreme view could have hijacked the movement.

2) Given that there are different approaches to Skepticism throughout history, there are different skeptical organizations: CSICOP, the Skeptic's Society, and JREF are "the big three". Individual skeptics come to these organizations with their own agendas, and may not be aware that they have different tactics. What nosho is describing sounds more like Forteanism, which is not Skepticism, but is certainly related. Foreanism may be closer to antique skepticism in some ways (overall agnosticism), but it is not aligned with modern Skepticism's approach: use what has been discovered about human thought and reasoning and the scientific method over the last few centuries to evaluate claims.

3) Be mindful that just because a person claims he's a skeptic, doesn't mean they know jack about modern or antique skepticism. I have a small role in recruiting for my local chapter of CSICOP, and I gotta tellya... if I had a nickel for every 'skeptic' whose credentials were that they are skeptical about that whole 'black people are equally intelligent thing' I'd be a rich man. The Klan are skeptical, but they're not Skeptics because they don't use Skeptical techniques. I guess what I'm saying is that individuals who do not meet up to the skeptical methodology are not necessarily a failure of the skeptical methodology. When used correctly, it seems very effective.

4) I think a worthwhile project may be to lay out a history of Skepticism, including antique and modern variations, and allow people to understand that there are some subjects that skeptics respectfully disagree about, because the skeptical approach does not produce results with enough confidence to close the debate. We don't see much of this for two reasons: nobody likes to air dirty laundry, and secondly, the knowledgeable and experienced participants who 'were there' are way too busy doing 'skeptical stuff' to sit down and write an analysis of the movement.

 

[Mercutio]

MERCUTIO: What a great post. Thanks. If that is the way you see things, then who am I to disagree with you? So let's pick a word. For the purpose of where you seem to be coming from, the best word might be "noumenon." So if that helps in any way to clarify things for you, instead of calling this "no-thing," let's label it "noumenon." Not a perfect label, but maybe one that will help point in the direction of what we're discussing.

It does not matter what you call it. I did not argue with the word itself, but with your definition of it. Call it whatever you wish, it does not change what it is (or is not).

Care to address any of the actual substantive issues?

 

[hammegk]

Care to address any of the actual substantive issues?

Kant took a pretty good shot at it.

 

[Mercutio]

Kant took a pretty good shot at it.

I wish he was here to defend it, then. He and I agree that such a thing is unknowable. Demmed if I know why he doesn't just stop there.

 

[hammegk]

Does unknowable mean does-not-exist?

 

[Tricky]

Does unknowable mean does-not-exist?

You can't know that.

BTW, welcome back Nosho. So sorry to hear about your loss. I did the same thing when my mom died a couple of years ago. I had no urge to post for quite some time.

Good summary of the posters' various responses too. I know you can't possibly reply to each post, but if you could hit some of the more intriguing responses, that would light the fire under this thread again.

 

[Mercutio]

Does unknowable mean does-not-exist?

It means unknowable. Even in principle. Nope, it does not mean does-not-exist, but it does mean we can never know if it does exist. Whether or not it does exist makes absolutely no difference that we will ever be able to detect, and so it is, pragmatically speaking, a useless concept. Let's spend our time on things that matter.

 

[hammegk]

Sounds good to me.

Science provides the bomb. How do we decide if we choose to drop it?

 

[Mercutio]

Sounds good to me.

Science provides the bomb. How do we decide if we choose to drop it?

Hmm...well, thus far in our history, we have made such decisions without the benefit of a science of human behavior--indeed, while assuming things about human nature that limit our options to after-the-fact punitive reactions.

So long as we refuse to apply science to our behavior (and as long as we promote the notion of "free will", we deny the very possibility of a science of human behavior), we artificially deny ourselves the benefit of the progress that science offers within any given area.

The same science which gives us the bomb also gives us technology which allows us to negotiate in real time, rather than at the speed of horse or sail. It multiplies the productivity of arable land, makes water more available, provides other avenues than aggression for a people to get what they need.

We cannot yet say whether science might allow us a more effective means by which to make the tough decisions, but given its track record within so many different areas, we would be fools to deny ourselves the benefit of a science of behavior. Of course, there is the camp that simply says "yup, we're fools..."

 

[Apathia]

Sounds good to me.

Science provides the bomb. How do we decide if we choose to drop it?

Appearantly Science will decide for us. In the future brains will be engineeed to make the right decisions.

 

[hammegk]

Yup, as the super-super-super-computer replied to the question "Is There A God?"; There is, now.

 

[nosho]

... the "possibility" is self-contradictory to the point of being oxymoronic. ... The words have meanings, as as you yourself acknowledge, this violates them, to the point of bleaching all meaning or indeed sense out of them.

This is true if you believe that skepticism is and only can be a variety of doubt. But I don't think that's necessarily the case. A proposition may exist that we consider to be true, but to which we apply skepticism out of a sense of self-honesty. We allow ourselves to imagine that the proposition might be false, even though we harbor the conviction that it is true. By examining the proposition, we are not engaged in doubt, but in skepticism. Lo and behold, we might be surprised to learn that we were wrong.

You are proposing a model of skepticism that does not include meaningful inquiry about those propositions that we do not doubt.

It's not a question of "pressure dial," but of evidence.

The "pressure dial" and the other so-called "dials" that I discussed in the OP represent decisions that we make consciously or unconsciously when we practice skepticism. Because we are human beings, there will always be the question of struggling with and acknowledging our beliefs as we examine ourselves and the world around us. There will always be the question of a "pressure dial," whether or not we choose to recognize it.

To willfully ignore evidence and to withhold warranted (dis)belief is not open-mindedness. ... Should I "neither believe nor disbelieve" that Italy won the World Cup? Why should I consider this still to be questionable?

Not everything is quite that straight-forward. The most important questions are not as black-and-white as, "Who won the World Cup?". If the universe were that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion, or any discussion in this forum. It would be obvious to everyone what is true and what is not true. We wouldn't even have to think. All we'd have to do is look at the unambiguous evidence, and we'd have perfect knowledge of reality.

That's not the way it is. Reasonable, intelligent people can disagree about what evidence shows. There are times when we will be mistaken, when those propositions that we do not doubt are in fact wrong. We all make mistakes.

Thus is may be useful to talk about the possibility of skepticism in the absence of doubt. This does not render the word "skepticism" meaningless. Rather, it gives us an opportunity to explore more deeply what we mean when we use this word.

So we have two choices: 1) We can settle on an absolutist definition of the word "skepticism" that makes it inseparable from doubt under any circumstance; or 2) We can acknowledge that when it comes to terms like "skepticism," common usage might not capture all the nuances of what we really mean by the word.

If I understand you correctly, you reject the possibility of (2) and affirm (1) as the only reasonable choice. That may be your position, my friend, but I am skeptical.

 

[nosho]

What nosho is describing sounds more like Forteanism, which is not Skepticism, but is certainly related. Foreanism may be closer to antique skepticism in some ways (overall agnosticism), but it is not aligned with modern Skepticism's approach: use what has been discovered about human thought and reasoning and the scientific method over the last few centuries to evaluate claims.

Reading up on Charles Fort was good for a chuckle. What a great sense of humor he had, plus the audacity to make a few legitimate points about the pitfalls of being too sure of oneself. Thanks for bringing him into this discussion.

But I was talking about skepticism, not Forteanism.

My point is that to pursue skepticism skillfully, one must become aware of the "dials" that I described in the OP. I have no overarching recommendation for how one should adjust the dials. That's completely up to each individual. But with regard to questions such as whether god exists, IF one decides via the "scope" setting that it is a fit subject for skepticism (as many apparently do), in that case I believe the most skillful setting for the "pressure" dial is at the midpoint. Other than that, I haven't said anything about how I believe someone should set the dials.

... there are some subjects that skeptics respectfully disagree about, because the skeptical approach does not produce results with enough confidence to close the debate.

Good point.

 

[nosho]

BTW, welcome back Nosho. So sorry to hear about your loss. I did the same thing when my mom died a couple of years ago. I had no urge to post for quite some time.

Thanks.

 

[Tricky]

Nosho, it seems that your objections to skepticism revolve around the observation that nobody is perfectly skeptical. That is undoubtedly true. We are all influenced by numerous factors which tend to make us more accepting or less accepting of positions or propositions. That's just being human.

One of the ways to be a "good" skeptic, I think is to acknowledge that you have blind spots and even to admit that you may not know what your own blind spots are.

Randi and others have said it, but it should be engraved on the brain of every person who purports to be a skeptic. "There is no one who it is easier to fool than yourself." To me, being a skeptic includes being constantly aware of this.

 

[blutoski]

Reading up on Charles Fort was good for a chuckle. What a great sense of humor he had, plus the audacity to make a few legitimate points about the pitfalls of being too sure of oneself. Thanks for bringing him into this discussion.

But I was talking about skepticism, not Forteanism.

Well, yeah, but if you chat with a Forean, they'll say "We're the true Skeptics, and those guys in the Skeptic's Society are dogmatic followers of the cult of debunking." Also: they are actually much closer to classical Skepticism (a la the Academy) than modern skepticism, which is more aligned with the scientific method.

My point is that you don't find whether somebody's a skeptic, so much as find out whether they're a skeptic in the same way as you mean by the term, and go from there.

My point is that to pursue skepticism skillfully, one must become aware of the "dials" that I described in the OP. I have no overarching recommendation for how one should adjust the dials. That's completely up to each individual. But with regard to questions such as whether god exists, IF one decides via the "scope" setting that it is a fit subject for skepticism (as many apparently do), in that case I believe the most skillful setting for the "pressure" dial is at the midpoint. Other than that, I haven't said anything about how I believe someone should set the dials.

Well, yeah. I don't think you're contributing anything new here. Skeptics are all over this concept. The two relevant publications that should be in every Skeptic's library are: Michael Shermer's Why we believe weird things and Thomas Gilovitch's How we know what isn't so.

I think the latter is a better piece, since Gilovitch actually does scientific research in the area of reasoning failure, and many of his findings will be surprising even to Skeptics (eg: we don't have "blind spots", per se: when we hear something that disagrees with our knowledge, we actually devote more attention to it, not less).

 

[Apathia]

we don't have "blind spots", per se: when we hear something that disagrees with our knowledge, we actually devote more attention to it, not less).

Here! Here! This is our ideal. It's not giving more attention to

debunk

it, but giving it more objective examination.

I confess I find motes in my own eyes, especially when I just must pull a beam out of someone else's. This is weakness of a skeptic, not a weakness of the sceptical approach.