|
November 17, 2008
What is a skeptic?
Steven Novella, whose Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast is one I never miss (also check the brief companion 5x5 podcast), is trying out a new definition for a perfectly good word that others (for some reason) don't seem too keen on, namely "skeptic": A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion. I jotted some notes that I reckoned others might find interesting or informative and thought it best to reprint my comment here: As a classicist I can tell you that the original meaning (Gk. skeptikos) was simply 'thoughtful, reflective.' It comes from a verb that describes a careful kind of looking. The idea of doubt came from a term also used to describe a certain kind of thinker: aporetikos. It isn't difficult to see how giving careful attention to philosophical questions (which in the ancient world also meant scientific questions) would lead one to be a doubter, in the same way that careful (i.e., critical) thought among modern skeptics leads us to doubt traditional explanations. This same type of thinker could also be called ephektikos, which is something like the modern coinage agnostic. This referred to someone as suspending judgment. What it really means is that you hold yourself back and look at things impartially. This is something else that we do, and it allows us to criticize the emotional responses of others. The three terms are closely associated, but one gave its name to a school. And as with many schools of thought through the ages, its opponents (like modern theists in the face of a resurgent atheism) took great pains to tar its practitioners. Far from being sub-optimal, I think skeptic is about as good a word as we're likely to find, and together with its companion adjectives (which have colored its reception) covers just about everything in your definition. posted by Dennis on 11.17.08 at 07:52 PM
Comments
That's not a definition. It's a windy mission statement that's exemplary of a tendency among people who call themselves skeptics that makes more aporetic types un-keen on the word. "We" is not reflective...though you might die of thirst admiring it. guy on internet · November 18, 2008 12:19 AM That's a good summation and ideal. Skepticism, I think, does have the positive connotation of refusing to accept on faith alone. Skeptic, not so much. It gives the impression of someone who doubts too much, who questions more than a reasonable person would. It's a fine line knowing when to say "enough, this is as sure as I can fairly ask to be". tim maguire · November 18, 2008 10:23 AM Being a skeptic is good. Types like Michael Shermer, on the other hand, go beyond skepticism into anti-mysticism, and tend to refer to them as Skeptians, because it is a religion to them. To me, the dividing line is if they use the phrase, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." To me, that is an anti-scientific statement, as proof is. It is either proof or it isn't, and if it is, then there is nothing extraordinary about it. Phelps · November 18, 2008 01:04 PM Anti-mysticism is a bad thing? That sounds like a synonym for skeptic. A skeptic is interested in looking carefully at things and removing mystery. Mysticism is nothing more than fetishizing the unknown. As for the statement about extraordinary claims, here's the original, by the inimitable Carl Sagan (he begins by talking about CSICOP, which now goes by the silly name CSI): "An interesting debate has gone on within the committee between those who think that all doctrines that smell of pseudoscience should be combated and those who think that each issue should be judged on its own merits, but that the burden of proof should fall squarely on those who make the proposals. I find myself very much in the latter camp. I believe that the extraordinary should certainly be pursued. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Scientists are, of course, human. When their passions are excited they may abandon temporarily the ideals of their discipline. But these ideals, the scientific method, have proved enormously effective. Finding out the way the world really works requires a mix of hunches, intuition and brilliant creativity; it also requires skeptical scrutiny of every step. It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science." Carl Sagan, Broca’s Brain, p. 73 ( “Night Walkers and Mystery Mongers: Sense and Nonsense at the Edge of Science”, originally published in Skeptical Inquirer 10, 1986.) As Michael Shermer mentioned in Why Darwin Matters, Evolution was an extraordinary claim when Darwin made it, and he necessarily offered extraordinary evidence. Irrefutable, too, unless you're the sort of mentally deficient chimpanzee who still clings to mysticism. Dennis · November 18, 2008 10:20 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2008
October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Not So Long Ago
Saving found art Yes, Happy Thanksgiving! Don't renege. Reframe! Pedal To The Metal WorldNetDaily versus the State of Hawaii Stimulus Package Keep the majority off the playing field. Standing Activists win, because bureaucracy rules!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"like modern theists in the face of a resurgent atheism"
Who, what, where, when?