Healthy Skepticism

[Phi for All]

I've noticed that "skepticism" seems to be another scientific term that's been hijacked by a popular definition, like "logic" and "theory". A lot of folks come here to express skepticism about a particular concept, hypothesis, or theory, and when the membership links them to tons of supportive evidence and patiently explains why this information should be trusted, they continue to be "skeptical" ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

 

I think healthy skepticism is about checking alleged facts, not taking people simply at their word, and wanting to get a peek at the methodology used to obtain the data to make sure the proper rigor was maintained. But the popular skeptic usually doesn't have the education or the skills to review theory, so they just stay skeptical about everything they're told, no matter what. And they think this is the way it's supposed to be, never giving in no matter how much evidence there is. "Oooooh, I don't know about THAT! I'm a skeptic!"

 

It's an Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity basically, and I've seen a lot of discussions here end up in a circle just because someone was being popularly "skeptical" about all the mainstream evidence being cited to them. "I don't know about that" should be a declaration of ignorance, not skepticism. Healthy skepticism is more like, "I'm going to find out if that's true or not". I think the healthy skeptic clears up his own doubt about a specific explanation, and then moves on when the preponderance of evidence shows what's most likely, right or wrong.

 

Is there any benefit to skepticism without verification? How do you best point this out to the popular skeptics?

[Acme]

I've noticed that "skepticism" seems to be another scientific term that's been hijacked by a popular definition, like "logic" and "theory". A lot of folks come here to express skepticism about a particular concept, hypothesis, or theory, and when the membership links them to tons of supportive evidence and patiently explains why this information should be trusted, they continue to be "skeptical" ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

I have noticed it too. Alas I have been informed there is no rule against being wrong, but surely the ad nauseam falls under soapboxing.

 

I think healthy skepticism is about checking alleged facts, not taking people simply at their word, and wanting to get a peek at the methodology used to obtain the data to make sure the proper rigor was maintained. But the popular skeptic usually doesn't have the education or the skills to review theory, so they just stay skeptical about everything they're told, no matter what. And they think this is the way it's supposed to be, never giving in no matter how much evidence there is. "Oooooh, I don't know about THAT! I'm a skeptic!"

Ignorance can be alleviated, but not stupidity.

 

It's an Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity basically, and I've seen a lot of discussions here end up in a circle just because someone was being popularly "skeptical" about all the mainstream evidence being cited to them. "I don't know about that" should be a declaration of ignorance, not skepticism. Healthy skepticism is more like, "I'm going to find out if that's true or not". I think the healthy skeptic clears up his own doubt about a specific explanation, and then moves on when the preponderance of evidence shows what's most likely, right or wrong.

The antithesis of a healthy skeptic is an unhealthy skeptic. The unhealthy skeptic on a forum is a troll who, faced with the inability to clear doubt, determines to sow discord, disrupt discussions, and provoke trouble.

 

Is there any benefit to skepticism without verification? How do you best point this out to the popular skeptics?

There is no benefit to unhealthy skepticism and you can point this out to a troll 'til you're blue in the face without one whit of reasoning ever getting through.

[imatfaal]

I've noticed that "skepticism" seems to be another scientific term that's been hijacked by a popular definition, like "logic" and "theory". A lot of folks come here to express skepticism about a particular concept, hypothesis, or theory, and when the membership links them to tons of supportive evidence and patiently explains why this information should be trusted, they continue to be "skeptical" ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Hmm. I am not so sure that your preferred notion is not the hijack. Even if the philosophical position is more defensible in your usage I would argue that the original concept is closer to the continual nay-sayer. The original sceptics did not believe in any form of concrete and permanent reality of objects - the senses could lie, the senses could tell the truth, they could do neither, and they can do both. Things are not in their nature knowable, measurable, discernable - they are both this and the other, etc.

 

 

 

This led [Pyrrho of Ellis] him to adopt a most noble philosophy, to quote Ascanius of Abdera, taking the form of agnosticism and suspension of judgement. He denied that anything was honourable or dishonourable, just or unjust. And so, universally, he held that there is nothing really existent, but custom and convention govern human action; for no single thing is in itself any more this than that.

From the Lives of the Eminent Philosophers

 

The five Tropes or Modes of Agrippa the Sceptic are not much more amenable

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/#AgrFivMod

[Acme]

Hmm. I am not so sure that your preferred notion is not the hijack. Even if the philosophical position is more defensible in your usage I would argue that the original concept is closer to the continual nay-sayer. The original sceptics did not believe in any form of concrete and permanent reality of objects - the senses could lie, the senses could tell the truth, they could do neither, and they can do both. Things are not in their nature knowable, measurable, discernable - they are both this and the other, etc.

From the Lives of the Eminent Philosophers

The five Tropes or Modes of Agrippa the Sceptic are not much more amenable

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/#AgrFivMod

Even if we accept that such apologetic notions of skepticism are attributable to the posters that Phi for All delineated, those arguments belong in philosophy and not as derailments to scientific discussions, i.e as Phi said, "when the membership links them to tons of supportive evidence and patiently explains why this information should be trusted, they continue to be "skeptical" ad infinitum, ad nauseam."

[Janus]

It reminds me of a quote by Robert Heinlein:

 

“You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting.”

[imatfaal]

Even if we accept that such apologetic notions of skepticism are attributable to the posters that Phi for All delineated, those arguments belong in philosophy and not as derailments to scientific discussions, i.e as Phi said, "when the membership links them to tons of supportive evidence and patiently explains why this information should be trusted, they continue to be "skeptical" ad infinitum, ad nauseam."

 

Theirs is not an apologetic notion of scepticism - I cannot understand why you would say it was.

 

I am a great believer in the scientific method, in empiricism, and in "scientific scepticism" - and you will note that I did not contradict or even quote Phi's argument any further than the first paragraph. But if we are claiming the ethical and philosophical highground - and I believe we are - then a claim that a certain party has hijacked a name and perverted its philosophy can and should be challenged if there is a belief that this is factually wrong.

 

You seem to be demonstrating that which you are railing against. I quoted from the most renowned of the classical biographies of the philosophers and gave a web-link to one of the best modern references - and yet you merely reiterated the initial argument without engaging with my points. To say once again - I also dislike the attitude and the philosophical and mental underpinnings which allow it; my point was that to claim that this attitude is not scepticism is open for debate as it seems very much in line with classical scepticism.

Edited April 30, 2015 by imatfaal
typo

[Acme]

Theirs is not an apologetic notion of scepticism - I cannot understand why you would say it was.

Your posting the references struck me as apologizing for, i.e. justifying, using skepticism as a fallback for derailing threads.

 

I am a great believer in the scientific method, in empiricism, and in "scientific scepticism" - and you will note that I did not contradict or even quote Phi's argument any further than the first paragraph.

Yes I noticed. I particularly noticed you didn't address how the skepticism -by any other name- is employed here at this forum to disrupt discussions.

 

But if we are claiming the ethical and philosophical highground - and I believe we are - then a claim that a certain party has hijacked a name and perverted its philosophy can and should be challenged if there is a belief that this is factually wrong.

I don't understand that as written. How does it apply to the issue of posters ignoring 'tons' of evidence and making trite responses such as "prove it", or "I'm skeptical"?

 

You seem to be demonstrating that which you are railing against.

 

I quoted from the most renowned of the classical biographies of the philosophers and gave a web-link to one of the best modern references - and yet you merely reiterated the initial argument without engaging with my points. To say once again - I also dislike the attitude and the philosophical and mental underpinnings which allow it; my point was that to claim that this attitude is not scepticism is open for debate as it seems very much in line with classical scepticism.

I read your link and quote, but they do not justify allowing the sort of circular ad nauseam postings that are at the crux of Phi's appeal. The upshot of Agrippa's 5 modes is that we can know nothing. Moreover, I don't see posters making any broad philosophical arguments of skepticism in the cases I see as fitting Phi's criteria. Whether these disruptive posts are accidental or intentional trolling, they are disruptive and if the past is any guide then there is no pointing this out to the promulgators that induces them to stop the disruptions.

[Phi for All]

TBH, I wasn't even thinking of skeptics in the classical sense. So perhaps modern mainstream science stole the definition first?

 

I'm tempted to link modern skepticism with a certain level of knowledge. If you have no intention of trying to verify a certain bit of data, or a study using methodology that might be in question, do you have the right to say you're skeptical about it in the scientific sense?

 

It's been commented on before that, if you want to think outside the box, you should know the box really, really well. Shouldn't we hold anyone who claims to be a skeptic to the scientific definition, and insist that, if they're going to question mainstream science, they have to verify the information for themselves, or admit they have no valid arguments against what they're skeptical about?

[Acme]

TBH, I wasn't even thinking of skeptics in the classical sense.

I thought you made that quite clear in your first sentence by putting skepticism in quotes. Neither do I believe the folks you have in mind are thinking of skepticism in the classical sense or that they even know what the classical sense is. As you said, the term is hijacked to give the appearance of knowledge and/or validity to an argument and it's just a euphemism to "I can't believe it" or "I don't understand but I disagree".

 

So perhaps modern mainstream science stole the definition first?

We can thank the likes of John Dewey, who said, "Skepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind."

 

I'm tempted to link modern skepticism with a certain level of knowledge.

See above.

 

If you have no intention of trying to verify a certain bit of data, or a study using methodology that might be in question, do you have the right to say you're skeptical about it in the scientific sense?

Unequivocally, no.

 

It's been commented on before that, if you want to think outside the box, you should know the box really, really well. Shouldn't we hold anyone who claims to be a skeptic to the scientific definition, and insist that, if they're going to question mainstream science, they have to verify the information for themselves, or admit they have no valid arguments against what they're skeptical about?

Unequivocally, yes.

 

Dad told me, a person convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still.

[iNow]

I don't believe in astrology; I'm a Sagittarius and we're skeptical.

― Arthur C. Clarke

 

 

Kidding aside, too often (at least online) people tend to use to the term skepticism in an attempt (whether consciously or unconsciously) to cloak their ignorance, buttress their contrarianism, and often mask their denialism with an unearned, unmerited, and unwarranted shroud of respectability.

Edited May 1, 2015 by iNow

[MigL]

But isn't that the accepted use iNow ?

 

For example, if I said...

"I'm skeptical we will ever find a cure for cancer"

or

" I'm skeptical that string theory will lead to a unified theory"

 

These are both 'gut' instincts and cannot be proven/disproven by me or others, and are both made from a position of ( admitted ) ignorance. The only difference is, that given evidence, I will change my mind about these 'gut' instincts.

 

So maybe the problem is not skepticism, but stubbornness.

[iNow]

For some, perhaps. Of course, real skeptics tend to seek the truth and change their minds when the preponderance of evidence surpasses some reasonable threshold.

 

We, however, seem to be discussing those self-described skeptics who use the label largely to ignore evidence and avoid any semblance of personal effort that may ultimately lead to a change of mind, and to do so while saving face publicly and avoiding censure.

[StringJunky]

For some, perhaps. Of course, real skeptics tend to seek the truth and change their minds when the preponderance of evidence surpasses some reasonable threshold.

 

We, however, seem to be discussing those self-described skeptics who use the label largely to ignore evidence and avoid any semblance of personal effort that may ultimately lead to a change of mind, and to do so while saving face publicly and avoiding censure.

Intransigent sceptics as opposed to thoughtful sceptics.

[MonDie]

It reminds me of a quote by Robert Heinlein:

 

“You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting.”

 

I only trust skeptics, and they've convinced me that you're a liar!

 

I say healthy skeptism should foster further inquiry.

[Sensei]

A lot of folks come here to express skepticism about a particular concept, hypothesis, or theory,

The truth is these people have their own (pet) theory that provided by us data is overthrowing..

 

If these people just came with question, received answer, they're grateful for knowledge.

They thank for learning something new.

But not layman-with-theory.

[Phi for All]

The truth is these people have their own (pet) theory that provided by us data is overthrowing..

 

If these people just came with question, received answer, they're grateful for knowledge.

They thank for learning something new.

But not layman-with-theory.

 

I consider this practice deceitful. It's one thing to have questions about mainstream science, but if someone claims to be skeptical about a mainstream explanation but they're perfectly fine offering up something unsupported they came up with on their own, I think they should be taken out back and shot (potato gun, of course).

 

It's hypocritical in many ways. You shouldn't claim to be skeptical about something if you don't intend to do the research to dispel or confirm your doubts. Skepticism should be an active behavior, not a passive one.

[MonDie]

I've noticed that "skepticism" seems to be another scientific term that's been hijacked by a popular definition, like "logic" and "theory". A lot of folks come here to express skepticism about a particular concept, hypothesis, or theory, and when the membership links them to tons of supportive evidence and patiently explains why this information should be trusted, they continue to be "skeptical" ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

 

I think healthy skepticism is about checking alleged facts, not taking people simply at their word, and wanting to get a peek at the methodology used to obtain the data to make sure the proper rigor was maintained. But the popular skeptic usually doesn't have the education or the skills to review theory, so they just stay skeptical about everything they're told, no matter what. And they think this is the way it's supposed to be, never giving in no matter how much evidence there is. "Oooooh, I don't know about THAT! I'm a skeptic!"

 

It's an Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity basically, and I've seen a lot of discussions here end up in a circle just because someone was being popularly "skeptical" about all the mainstream evidence being cited to them. "I don't know about that" should be a declaration of ignorance, not skepticism. Healthy skepticism is more like, "I'm going to find out if that's true or not". I think the healthy skeptic clears up his own doubt about a specific explanation, and then moves on when the preponderance of evidence shows what's most likely, right or wrong.

 

I think there's something to be said about each. I think a true skeptic would continually question so long as they consider the question important, so continued questioning marks out the "skeptic", as opposed to the "denier" who is simply persuaded of a negative position. However, a healthy, pragmatic skeptic may act as though something's true or false, yet question it indefinitely rather than "move on".

As for denial, we all deny some things and accept others, but it apparently has a negative connotation as an "-ism".

Edited May 7, 2015 by MonDie

[swansont]

At some point you have to accept something as being true, or false. As with all science, this is provisional — given sufficient contrary evidence, one must be prepared to change their position. And since people do not have identical backgrounds or mental compositions, there will be a distribution of what people consider sufficient evidence for this (provisional) acceptance. The boundary will invariably be fuzzy. But there is a class of people for whom no amount of evidence will suffice (which then falls under religion or denialism), or whose demands are too rigid to be reasonable*. These people are not skeptics. On the other side, there are people too credulous, who have set the bar too low. They are not skeptics, either. (again, could be religion, or gullible-ism)

 

*e.g. if the only evidence I will accept for bigfoot is for one of them to walk up to me in the parking lot at the Safeway, then I am not being skeptical. I am just being contrary.

[CharonY]

It should also be noted that some evidence require a certain level of knowledge to recognize it as such.

[swansont]

It should also be noted that some evidence require a certain level of knowledge to recognize it as such.

 

That's certainly true, and I think related to my example of an unreasonable demand — e.g. if you don't accept DNA evidence because you don't know what DNA is or why it's important, then you are unreasonably restricting what constitutes evidence. Which is not skepticism.

[MonDie]

At some point you have to accept something as being true, or false. As with all science, this is provisional — given sufficient contrary evidence, one must be prepared to change their position. And since people do not have identical backgrounds or mental compositions, there will be a distribution of what people consider sufficient evidence for this (provisional) acceptance. The boundary will invariably be fuzzy. But there is a class of people for whom no amount of evidence will suffice (which then falls under religion or denialism), or whose demands are too rigid to be reasonable*. These people are not skeptics. On the other side, there are people too credulous, who have set the bar too low. They are not skeptics, either. (again, could be religion, or gullible-ism)

 

*e.g. if the only evidence I will accept for bigfoot is for one of them to walk up to me in the parking lot at the Safeway, then I am not being skeptical. I am just being contrary.

 

+1 for the point that people have different backgrounds and so may see or understand different evidence.

 

"Belief" is trivial unless belief is related to action, in which case the proper height of bar depends on the action being taken.