Is Scepticism a process, or a belief system?

[cj.23]

Hullo,

OK, my second attempt at a thread. Over the years I have had much amusement discussing many things on internet forum, and have debated with some very intelligent and charming sceptics. One question which arose in those discussions is on the very nature of scepticism.

Now firstly, I'll just say I am not addressing a priori scepticism here. It strikes me as a very different beast.

My argument, and it's one that has caused much argument, is that while I tend to belief in certain contentious issues, on a balance of probability - say some the reality of the Loch Ness Monster as an example - my examination of the issues and evidence is sceptical.

I see scepticism as a process, not as a conclusion. Sure my conclusions might be there is no such thing, but then I have reached a conclusion - a negative one - "there is no grounds for belief in this hypothesis, or it is unlikely to be true on a balance of probability".

So I have always seen scepticism as the rational examination of claims and evidence, that is a mode of enquiry.

So I would never say "I am a Sceptic". A sceptic, unless a priori, is not a state, ideology, or conclusion, but someone engaging in an ongoing examination of the evidence in light of reason, science and critical faculties. We do Scepticism, but are not ourselves "sceptics" in the sense that we remain open minded, merely pursuing truth in an unbiased and scientific manner. Calling myself a sceptic would worry me, as it might imply a prejudiced and perjorative treatment of the subject? Is thsi really part of the problem with public perception of scepticism?

Dunno, I might be talking rot. I usually do.

Any thoughts?

cj x

 

[Patricio Elicer]

I see skepticism as a sifter, a methodology to unveil the mysteries of existance, a willingness to test ideas against observations and evidence.

The real world is often subtler than what we may think, skepticism and open debate are the best tools for unfolding and understanding it.

 

[cj.23]

I see skepticism as a sifter, a methodology to unveil the mysteries of existance, a willingness to test ideas against observations and evidence.

Yes! A methodology! I concur absolutely. That is really what I mean by a process and mode of enquiry... sorry if I was not clear, that states it beautifully, much better than I ever could have.

Thank you
cj x

 

[Spindrift]

What is wrong with the term "sceptic"? I don't understand why you are adverse to it.

 

[cj.23]

I'm not adverse to it. I see it as a fair statement. I just see scepticism as a methodology not a position.

Consider 3 statements

1. Telepathy has been reliably repeatedly and conclusively demonstrated in the laboratory.
2. Santa Claus is coming to town.
3. The universe has not always been here, but had a beginning.

All three strike me as extraordinary claims. I would be sceptical of each - the third I was convinced of by evidence. The term "sceptic" can be applied indiscriminately.

So I am not sceptical of the Warren Report in to the Assassination of JFK. Well not very, it probably has flaws. I am not sceptical about 9/11. I certainly am not sceptical about the origins of the Universe. I have examined the evidence, and come to conclusions. If I term myself a sceptic, I lay myself open to misunderstanding ( I think, I'm far from sure...)

Furthermore my problem with labelling myself a final sceptic is what if new evidence comes along? I did for a while briefly consider the sceptical claims that the Titanic never sank (not as nuts as it sounds...) Plenty of new evidence came along, and i reversed that position.

Hence my emphasis on scepticism as a methodology, a mode of enquiry.

Of course a priori scepticism of some areas may be entirely reasonable. Yet as i noted, a priori scepticism is actually a very different thing.

Scepticism is in fact as far as I can see the normal mode of scientific enquiry? Scepticism therefore is something which should be taught, along with critical thinking, in schools?

cj x

 

[jimtron]

Scepticism is in fact as far as I can see the normal mode of scientific enquiry? Scepticism therefore is something which should be taught, along with critical thinking, in schools?

Yes. Schools do teach these things, but I don't think they're emphasized enough.

In regard to the title of this thread, skepticism is not a belief system, although I think it is often mistaken for one. Some people seem to think all skeptics share the same ideology or dogma (anti-"weird" anti-everything, anti-new age, anti religion, etc.). What skeptics share is a method for understanding nature.

Something I find interesting, is that everyone is skeptic about something. When a woo starts dissing skepticism, sometimes I point out their skepticism of big drug companies, or politicians; or point out that the Bible speaks of false prophets and false religions.

 

[Yahzi]

I just see scepticism as a methodology not a position.

And one who engages in that method is a skeptic, just as one who engages in the methodology of football is a footballer (as opposed to a baseballer or a golfer - what some would call "alternate modalities" of transporting balls to particular destinations.)

I don't see anything prejudical in calling oneself a skeptic. Of course, announcing that you are going to engage in a skeptical process pretty much tells everyone else that you will reach certain conclusions, because everyone knows that some claims are just irrational.

Scepticism therefore is something which should be taught, along with critical thinking, in schools?

Are you nuts? Kids are hard enough to control as it is; if we teach them think for themselves and doubt authority, how will society survive?

 

[SusanB-M1]

#1
Even if you invented a new word to describe exactly what you wanted it to mean, that word would quickly be appropriated by others to mean something slightly different.

 

[The Atheist]

So I would never say "I am a Sceptic". A sceptic, unless a priori, is not a state, ideology, or conclusion, but someone engaging in an ongoing examination of the evidence in light of reason, science and critical faculties. We do Scepticism, but are not ourselves "sceptics" in the sense that we remain open minded, merely pursuing truth in an unbiased and scientific manner. Calling myself a sceptic would worry me, as it might imply a prejudiced and perjorative treatment of the subject? Is thsi really part of the problem with public perception of scepticism?

Dunno, I might be talking rot. I usually do.

Any thoughts?

cj x

Well put, I'm with you all the way on this - I never refer to myself as a "sceptic" as I feel that it implies scepticism about everything and quite simply, I'm not.

Scepticism is a process or methodology, not a way of life - in my view.

 

[Ginarley]

Seems to me "sceptic" is another one of those words that has gained a stigma much like atheism. As discussed elsewhere being an atheist is not really a special decision you need to make, its more the absence of something. You could argue a sceptic is someone who has an absence of faith - ie they don't believe without evaluating the evidence. Like atheism, I think it necessary to somehow explicity put scepticism aside (through upbringing, teaching, stupidity, whatever works) to not be a sceptic.

I think any rational person is sceptical of almost everything, scepticism does not mean that you disagree with everything, only that you question it. Sceptics seem to have a reputation as devil's advocates which I think is undeserved.

So wrt the OP, yes I think a process is probably an apt description, but it is a natural process rather than something that you need to adopt and learn specially.

 

[fls]

And one who engages in that method is a skeptic,

Everyone engages in that method.

Everyone is a skeptic when it comes to stuff they don't believe. I think it's more useful to reserve the label for those people who are actually consistent and are willing to apply skepticism to that which they hold dear.

And I think a skeptic/skepticism can be a state, as well (not necessarily a priori). It is the difference between a false positive and a false negative. In the face of inadequate evidence (and isn't it always?), a skeptic avoids falsely assuming it to be true, whereas a believer avoids falsely assuming it is not true.

Linda

 

[politas]

Everyone is a skeptic when it comes to stuff they don't believe.

No. You are wrong. That is the incorrect usage of the word "skeptical" that we try to avoid. You are not "skeptical" of things you don't believe in, you are unbelieving of them. Someone who is a skeptic is skeptical of everything, whether the evidence leads them to belief or unbelief. I am skeptical of relativity, gravity, evolution and statistical analysis. I am also skeptical of aliens, gods, ghosts and leprechauns. The former set I consider there is sufficient evidence to assign a provisional "true" value to, while the latter do not occupy that status.

There are people who are not skeptical in any way, but they still disbelieve many things. A fundamentalist Christian does not believe in the existence of Thor, but his disbelief is dogmatism, not skepticism.

 

[fls]

No. You are wrong. That is the incorrect usage of the word "skeptical" that we try to avoid. You are not "skeptical" of things you don't believe in, you are unbelieving of them.

I agree. When I said that "everyone is a skeptic when it comes to stuff they don't believe", what I meant was "everyone is willing to undertake a rational examination of claims and evidence when it comes to stuff they don't believe."

Someone who is a skeptic is skeptical of everything, whether the evidence leads them to belief or unbelief. I am skeptical of relativity, gravity, evolution and statistical analysis. I am also skeptical of aliens, gods, ghosts and leprechauns. The former set I consider there is sufficient evidence to assign a provisional "true" value to, while the latter do not occupy that status.

That was the point I was trying to make - obviously poorly.

There are people who are not skeptical in any way, but they still disbelieve many things. A fundamentalist Christian does not believe in the existence of Thor, but his disbelief is dogmatism, not skepticism.

I agree. I did not mean to imply that all (or even most) disbelief is based on skepticism.

Linda

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

There’s definitely a semantic confusion around the term “skepticism.” Often it’s used as a synonym of “doubt,” which it really isn’t. Too often people will say, “I used to be skeptical, but now I believe Sylvia Browne really is psychic!” Well, if you believe that, you were never properly skeptical.

I’m not sure I’d call it a specific method, however -- more a willingness or tendency to use a specific method -- that of scientific reasoning, mainly.

 

[John Jackson]

Furthermore my problem with labelling myself a final sceptic is what if new evidence comes along?

A skeptic is merely someone who adopts the method of skepticism in assessing claims etc. so if new evidence comes along a skeptic will consider it and alter their conclusion accordingly.

A skeptic is not a dogmatic disbeliever (!)

'Skeptic' as a label has many problems but I think we're stuck with it unless someone can come up with a better term. The trouble is, alternatives have just as many problems.

I see the overriding problem as a one of public perception. All we can do is keep on explaining what skepticism is about and what a skeptic is.

A big misconception is that people think a person is a skeptic if they disbelieve in something. For example, the BBC broadcast a documentary about the death of Diana a week or so back and throughout it they referred to the conspiracy theorists as skeptics!

CTs may doubt things but they can hardly be taken as skeptics. Unless, like the BBC, you use the term incorrectly.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's a fool's errand to try to define skeptic, atheist, god, intelligent design, free will, and scads of other words. Even if you do, most people will interpret the word to mean something else, as SusanB said.

~~ Paul

 

[Yahzi]

A skeptic is not a dogmatic disbeliever (!)

Actually, that is one of the valid, historical definitions - in Ancient Greece that is what it meant. (What we now mean by skepticism, they just referred to as "educated." )

 

[John Jackson]

I thought that the original skeptics set out to prove that absolute knowledge is unobtainable, in order to oppose the dogmatism of religion?

And many modern skeptics call themselves truthseekers!

I know, there have been, and are, many flavours of skepticism especially in philosophy.

I think what we need to do though, is set out what we mean by modern skepticism (rational/scientific skepticism) so that people get to know where we're coming from.

If we're too scared to call ourselves skeptics because of some people's misconception of what we stand for then we're just adding to the misconception.

 

[articulett]

I think skepticism can be summed up thusly: I'd rather not know something that believe a lie. Although believers of all sorts would like to call skeptics closed-minded and believe that we have a dogma of non-belief (and so they are "skeptical of the skeptics"--they always think they are clever when they say this.) But skepticism is a tool--not a position. We become more firm in our understanding or conviction as the evidence accumulates--we're not forever on the fence. People have been making wacky claims for eons--what better way to separate the facts from the fiction then by evidence. Why should one unsupported claim be preferential to another--especially when they involve invisible, unmeasurable entities or forces or "conspiracies".

 

[Tricky]

Everyone is a skeptic when it comes to stuff they don't believe.

More correctly, (almost) everyone is a skeptic when they are shopping for a used car.

My own feeling about the definition of "skepticism" is that it has, like many words, multiple definitions depending on context. At Patricio rightly points out, it is a methodology for determining truth, but it is also the philosophy that the skeptical method is the best method for determining truth.

Everybody employs skepticism at some times. Those who make a conscious effort to do so regarding all pursuit of knowledge are skeptics.