Is skepticism a belief system?

[Pangloss]

This thread started at the suggestion of Interesting Ian, who in response to my open question in the original thread wrote:

BTW the skeptics on here are most emphatic that their skepticism does not constitute a belief system. Unfortunately almost everything they say indicates otherwise.

Provocative - looks like scope for a pillow fight.


Originally posted by hodgy

Skeptics, of course, have beliefs but that does not make skepticism a belief system.

Skepticism is an approach to beliefs and ideas. It defines the methodologies that an individual will use and support in trying to discover the validity or otherwise of a particular claim or belief - it is not the beliefs themselves.

Everyone is to some degree skeptical in that there will be some things that they just will not accept at face value. For example, a Christian might doubt the existence of the Loch Ness Monster on skeptical rather than religious grounds.

People who describe themselves as skeptics generally mean that they try to apply a skeptical approach to all of their beliefs (although there are obviously some practical limitations).

Skepticism is not a belief system (by which I think you mean a set of beliefs) but an approach to validating beliefs - essentially it is the opposite of credulity.

A nice response. I should say, I don't really have strong thoughts/feelings (there's another can of worms) in any particular direction on whether skepticism amounts to a belief system.

It seems to hinge quite importantly on how you distinguish 'belief system' from 'approach', and how you define 'belief system' in particular. I think that quite a plausible case can be put for describing various religious traditions as 'approaches (to understanding)', however their purview could be said to be somewhat broader than this, to include defining a moral path as possibly the most important element. So a belief system probably needs to be something bigger than an intellectual Swiss Army knife.

But how 'big' can an 'approach' be? What if it amounts not merely to a lens through which you aspects of the world, but to something that defines the values by which you interact with the wider world?

You might also consider the plausibility of getting about with multiple parallel belief systems - skeptism for this, zen for that, Aunt Zelda's seventeen quick-baked commandments when all else fails.

I have not made a study of skepticism, but I expect that it contains a number of identifiably variant 'approaches', much as there are differing perspectives on the scientific method, with which there is obvious overlap. Some people, and I'm probably not far from this category, might approach nearly every issue in their lives with a consciously skeptical perspective, in which case it might be valid to describe their personal skepticism as a belief system, even if they don't consciously acknowledge that it defines their values.

But values are very slippery conceptual things.

For comparison, when engaging in debate on the old creation/evolution thing, particularly with YECs, I often find myself referred to as an 'evolutionist', the '-ist' suffix implying an attachment somewhat stronger than mere assent. I do dispute strongly (when challenged to so do) that my perspective amounts to a 'religion', but of the lesser charge that it amounts to a belief system, meaning both a perspective of broad application and a source of moral guidance, I find I must reply 'guilty'.

 

[Z]

I think skepticism is more of a light philosophy than a belief, strictly speaking. A belief usually entails certain assumptions that you accept that are unprovable, and often assumptions that are disprovable. Skepticism is more of a process - of not making those assumptions in the first place.

It still could be considered a belief system, though, simply because it requires a belief that evidence of a claim is of greater importance than any other aspect of the claim. If someone says that God sent him a letter telling him to spend his billions of dollars feeding the poor, a hard Skeptic is likely going to be more concerned with analyzing the letter and finding a non-divine source for it, than accepting the good this person is going to do for people. Of course, that's not the nature of most belief-oriented claims. Like it or not, most claims are either excuses for bigotry and intolerance, ploys for attention and fame, or raw attempts at scamming others out of their money or bodily usage.

Well, so be it. Skepticism has its uses, to be sure. Science works well due to skepticism. Skeptics help stop a lot of frauds. And you rarely hear where some skeptic causes problems instead of helping solve them.

 

[RichardR]

No

It's a method for evaluating claims.

 

[clarsct]

Our beLIEfs are usually founded on a LIE.


Semantic aside, our old friend Interesting Ian, was once again try to insist that we ARE believers, despite what we say. Furthermore, believers in something akin to his own beliefs. Yet he has no hard evidence. And that is the difference. Skepticism is a method(good wording, RichardR) of basing what you believe on hard evidence. It has nothing to do with WHAT you believe. It has a lot to do with making sure what you believe is reality-based.

My take on it.

 

[Z]

Our beLIEfs are usually founded on a LIE.


Semantic aside, our old friend Interesting Ian, was once again try to insist that we ARE believers, despite what we say. Furthermore, believers in something akin to his own beliefs. Yet he has no hard evidence. And that is the difference. Skepticism is a method(good wording, RichardR) of basing what you believe on hard evidence. It has nothing to do with WHAT you believe. It has a lot to do with making sure what you believe is reality-based.

My take on it.

Not bad at all.

That being said - how far is too far? lifegazer, for example, could arguably be said to be even more skeptical, since he sees no evidence for believing in 'reality'.

No wonder some beliefs call for moderation in all things.

 

[clarsct]

Not bad at all.

That being said - how far is too far? lifegazer, for example, could arguably be said to be even more skeptical, since he sees no evidence for believing in 'reality'.

No wonder some beliefs call for moderation in all things.

To deny reality is to say "We cannot know anything about anything."

It is, semantically, the same as saying we can never know anything about the mind of god. Then what use is the Bible? Or praying? Or belief? Whatever happens, GODIDIT. So, why bother?

Personally, I don't feel there is a choice. You may disbelieve in a train to your heart's content. Right up until it runs you over.

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Pangloss

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
BTW the skeptics on here are most emphatic that their skepticism does not constitute a belief system. Unfortunately almost everything they say indicates otherwise.

Provocative - looks like scope for a pillow fight.

Ian tends to be hooked on a few things:

He considers skeptics to be different than sceptics (apparently the first term is derogatory and refers to skeptics who think they are sceptics but really arent), so it isnt surprising he would single out "skepticism" as belief system.

Although I cannot speak for Ian, I believe Ian would define the "skeptical belief system" along these lines: a lot like Christianity as a belief system, but substitute Charles Darwin as God, "On the Origin of Species" as the bible, and Materialism as its faith. To Ian, skepticism doesnt have much to do with rational inquiring into the truth or falsehood of claims about the world, but much more to do with crawling into a narrow worldview where Materialism reigns and minds are so deluded that they cant see the obvious immaterial world around them.

In the end, what you get out of the whole "skepticism is a belief system" idea is, simply put, an attempt to undermine skepticism by placing it on the same level as religious faith or other kookery. This is done to dismiss the merit of actual considerations which may not sit well with Ian, such as questioning the existence of an afterlife or a soul.

Ian is a bright guy, definitely one of the brightest people on JREF (and I mean sincerely), but sometimes his suggestions such as "skepticism is a belief system" is just being hard-headed.



And by the way, welcome to the board, Pangloss

 

[Thomas]

Good question, but first we would have to define a skeptic, and it is quite a task to describe these as a certain phenotype as even Bigfoot hunters are likely to call themselves skeptics.

As I see it, there are some traits a real skeptic should hold. In my silent mind I call these kind of skeptics the real McCoys.

• The real McCoys doesn't believe that claims of the paranormal are correct. Basically because all past investigations of paranormal claims has revealed but mundane and scientifically plausible explanations. On the other hand, the McCoys believe that the sun will rise again tomorrow.
  
• The real McCoys are always ready to change their mind, but they demand: Extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. Still, the McCoys doesn't believe it will happen tomorrow.
  
• The real McCoys consider status quo science the best we have, but are aware that it is a tentative system where errors can and will occur. In this manner they believe in science and hereby the evidence system. Perhaps also tomorrow.
  
• The real McCoys believe in a lot of things, but they never claim it to be the truth, and this is what makes the McCoy a McCoy: Uncertainty - maybe.. also tomorrow.

All the supporters of organized religion or paranormal claims I've encountered so far, could never be a real McCoy, because they're somehow certain about the justification of their claims and they present weak or no evidence to support it. That's a major diffrence between the McCoys and the poor polluted minds.

 

[Pangloss]

It looks like there is a fair consensus on the self-proclaimed skeptic/sceptic side, that skepticism is a set of intellectual tools - can I write "******** detector" on this board and not be strung up?

However tools need sharpening from time to time and that's what detractors are for, so we should treasure them.

A lot really hinges on definitions/semantics. The question, "What is a belief system?" seems central in this discussion, in a number of ways. Firstly, the skeptical method is proposed as a useful way of assessing whether one belief (system) or another has a reasonable basis. Since skepticism insists on the application of cool materialist logic, which is structured, it can be described as a 'system'.

There is also however an implicit moral dimension, which says, "this is a good (valuable) way of thinking about things", but that seems to be the extent of anything that could be called 'belief'. Whether or not this 'belief that the skeptical system is a good way of evaluating claims and beliefs' heads into the realm of faith, rather depends upon how much presumption one places in one's natural ******** detecting ability. I might think I'm a champion skeptic (i.e. have stupendous faith in my skeptical abilities), but it could be closer to the truth to say that I was kidding myself, and am just a gullible nit seeking to bask in reflected nerdy glory.

I guess I can expect at some point to be tackled by Interesting Ian on the 'Darwinian religion' issue - having dropped a pretty obvious lure and all.

 

[Pangloss]

It looks like there is a fair consensus on the self-proclaimed skeptic/sceptic side, that skepticism is a set of intellectual tools - can I write "******** detector" on this board and not be strung up?

Seems not. Let's test the censor bot's multilingual talents:
'caca del toro' detector

 

[woodguard]

No.
But some have turn it into a belief system and even a religion.

It someone report they psychic:

A true skeptic would ask “really can I test you?”

A religious skeptic would say “That crazy, because psychics don’t exists”.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh, let's be honest now. Skepticism is a belief system: I believe all that stuff you just said is utter crapola.

~~ Paul

 

[amherst]

Originally posted by hodgy
Skeptics, of course, have beliefs but that does not make skepticism a belief system.

Skepticism is an approach to beliefs and ideas. It defines the methodologies that an individual will use and support in trying to discover the validity or otherwise of a particular claim or belief - it is not the beliefs themselves.

Everyone is to some degree skeptical in that there will be some things that they just will not accept at face value. For example, a Christian might doubt the existence of the Loch Ness Monster on skeptical rather than religious grounds.

People who describe themselves as skeptics generally mean that they try to apply a skeptical approach to all of their beliefs (although there are obviously some practical limitations).

Skepticism is not a belief system (by which I think you mean a set of beliefs) but an approach to validating beliefs - essentially it is the opposite of credulity

You make it sound as if there is an objective way to arrive at conclusions about the validity of claims and anomalies. The famous dictum, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," is the stated, and incredibly vague, motto of the skeptic. This approach -- disbelieving the anomalous until extraordinary evidence is presented-- is going to be tied to a person's subjective belief about what constitutes extraordinary evidence. And that belief is influenced (if not wholly created) by philosophical or religious beliefs or dispositions which, in almost everyone, predominate. So, while skepticism isn't a belief system unto itself, it is an appendage of already set beliefs. Those beliefs are what determine what will be acceptable as "extraordinary evidence" and what won't be. Skepticism is the process of determining whether the evidence meets the criteria already established by those beliefs. That even some of the most eminent scientists set criteria for anomalies which can never be met is illustrated by the remarks of the psychologist Donald Hebb and the physicist Hermann von Helmholtz. Hebb:

Why do we not accept ESP as a psychological fact? Rhine has offered us enough evidence to have convinced us on any other issue... I cannot see what other basis my colleagues have for rejecting it... My own rejection of [Rhine's] views is in a literal sense prejudice.

Helmholtz:

I cannot believe it. Neither the testimony of all the Fellows of the Royal Society, nor even the evidence of my own senses would lead me to believe in the transmission of thought from one person to another independently of the recognized channels of sensation. It is clearly impossible.

amherst

 

[Pangloss]

This approach -- disbelieving the anomalous until extraordinary evidence is presented-- is going to be tied to a person's subjective belief about what constitutes extraordinary evidence. And that belief is influenced (if not wholly created) by philosophical or religious beliefs or dispositions which, in almost everyone, predominate. So, while skepticism isn't a belief system unto itself, it is an appendage of already set beliefs.

True confessions of a moderate skeptic:

My philosophy on life, the universe and everything takes naturalism as a default position - I don't see that there is anything to be gained from inserting "woo" in the spaces between my rational comprehension.

My skeptical appendage: Before accepting that something deserves to be accepted as fact, I require evidence that at least promises to stand up to rational inquiry. Either that, or it's very big and chasing me.

Is that a belief system, or an unbelief system?

 

[hodgy]

As has been mentioned the whole argument depends on the definition of the term 'belief system'. I do not think that its particularly useful or interesting to start a debate about the meaning of that term though.

The main point of my original post was to point out the difference between the a set of beliefs on the one hand and a methodolgy for arriving at beliefs on the other. This has, I think, been deliberately or accidentally confused by believers seeking to establish some sort of equivalence between skepticism and Faith.

As for 'extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims', plain old ordinary evidence is sufficient for me and the absence of it is what makes the claims extraordinary in the first place.

 

[Thomas]

Skepticism is a faith based supremely on laws and evidence, were most other beliefs are based chiefly on assumptions piled upon each other in often obscure and absurd constructs.

Some people refuse to recognize the significance of this difference, mainly because their desire to be special will inhibit their ability to draw any conclusions which can conflict with this ambition. The Goddess of Pride and Fortitude are observing all the time.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Skepticism is a state of mind, the quality of doubting any kind of knowledge. I regularly say that science is not a body of beliefs (like some appears to think), but a collection of methodologies.

Well, behind those methodologies is an skeptical state of mind, a kind of ground from where one ask questions.

I disagree in that it is any kind of belief system.

 

[Thomas]

Ok, before we have rewritten the entire dictionary, I think that we should try to hold together the key terms concerning the OP question as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary. Otherwise we are just staggering around in the various definitions people hold, and will end up nowhere.

Is..

Skepticism:

S1: A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.

A..

Belief:

B1: The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever. (Irrelevant to this context, yes (?))

B2: Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

B3: Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.


So, can S1 be considered equivalent to B2 or B3? That is the question. To be or not to be.
I consider especially S1 and B3 to be a fair match, because skepticism is an attitude or state of mind that is believed to be true by the skeptics (including myself).

Edit: I'm even in doubt about being in doubt sometimes, what does that make me? A meta-skeptic perhaps?

Edit 2: One more thing, BDZ; S1 and B2 is a better match to basically.. contradict your argument concerning the OP question, but I still get your point though. Faith is not skepticism, but the classic values held by skeptics is a faith though. That's why I tried to define those values in my first post in this thread.

 

[Thomas]

Just clarify further, I thought it might be worth to look at the question translated to the definitons. This is a good way to measure the question.

v1 :

Is a doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind a mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something?

Yes, the assumption that a doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind leads to the best possible knowledge.

v2:

Is a doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons?

Yes, the skeptics.

I guess that's a yes to the OP question.

 

[Yahweh]

True confessions of a moderate skeptic:

My philosophy on life, the universe and everything takes naturalism as a default position - I don't see that there is anything to be gained from inserting "woo" in the spaces between my rational comprehension.

My skeptical appendage: Before accepting that something deserves to be accepted as fact, I require evidence that at least promises to stand up to rational inquiry. Either that, or it's very big and chasing me.

Is that a belief system, or an unbelief system?

Neither, its the scientific method in action

Its worth repeating what others have stated in this thread: at the very least, skeptical methodology is means to achieve certain beliefs and worldviews, but it doesnt make sense to call the method a belief system in itself.