• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Definition of Skepticism

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