Skepticism is an honest search for knowledge. It is an approach to claims akin to the scientific method. It is a powerful and positive methodology (a collection of methods of inquiry) that is used to evaluate claims and make decisions. It is used to search for the (provisional) truth in matters and to make decisions that are based on sound reasoning, logic, and evidence. Skepticism is based on a simple method: doubt and inquiry. The idea is to neither initially accept claims nor dismiss them; it’s about questioning them and testing them for validity. Only after inquiry does a skeptic take a stance on an issue.
There is more than one way to look at claims of all kinds:
Acceptance.
For many reasons, people will accept claims at face value. The claims may agree with their other beliefs and so are deemed acceptable, they may have heard a claim repeated so often that they assume it must be true (e.g. we only use 10% of our brains) or it may be something they would like to be true; that fits in with their world-view or that of their social group.
This approach has the major disadvantage that claims and beliefs are not scrutinised and could well be false.
Denial.
This approach is where a claim is dismissed without consideration because it does not fit in with a person's current understanding, belief system or world-view. No thought or scrutiny needs to be used; if the claim is not deemed acceptable for any reason, it is denied. The disadvantage to this approach is that if a claim were to be true, it would not be recognised as such.
Doubt and inquiry
This method is the essence of skepticism. Claims, whether they look reasonable or extremely unlikely to be true, will be doubted; however, they will not be denied. A skeptic will then inquire after the truth. The method involves:
Doubt
Doubt is not the same as denial. Skeptics use doubt constructively; it is a provisional stance, the suspension of judgement: a position held until a claim can be assessed. The purpose of constructive doubt is to avoid hasty conclusions such as accepting or rejecting claims without justification.
Inquiry
To inquire means to search for knowledge. This is the very heart of skepticism. If a claim is to be examined, evidence in support of the claim needs to be considered, but crucially, so do counter-claims and alternative explanations. Successful inquiry is the result of examining all of the evidence related to a claim and reaching a conclusion that is justifiable.
After inquiry, a skeptic will form a conclusion on an issue (should sufficient robust evidence have been available to justify one); however, this conclusion is a provisional one that may change if better or newer information comes to light. This aspect of holding a provisional position on matters gives skepticism the beneficial attribute of being self-correcting. There is no dogma with skepticism: no matter how sound a conclusion appears there is always room for it to be shown to be wrong by new evidence.
The advantage of this method is that claims are scrutinised. False and misleading claims stand a much better chance of being discovered as such; and any claim, whether ordinary, paranormal, or scientific, that seems unlikely but is nonetheless true, will have a good chance of being shown to be true.
The burden of proof
The burden of proof is the concept that it is up to those making a claim to prove it, or provide good supporting evidence for it, rather than for others to disprove it. This is the same concept as how a court of law operates. It is up to the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty; it's not up to the defence to prove innocence.
This is the approach to claims that skeptics take. A claim presented will be doubted (presumed unproved) until the evidence in support of it can be examined. If the evidence supports the claim, either completely or beyond reasonable doubt, the claim will be accepted; otherwise it will be rejected unless or until further evidence is presented.
What is evidence?
When talking about evidence, skeptics are referring to tangible or empirical evidence. That is, evidence that can be inspected or examined by third parties. It is the quality, or robustness, of supporting evidence that determines whether a claim is accepted or rejected.
It is because of the importance of the high quality of evidence required to support claims that one of the most popular forms of general evidence, personal testimony (or anecdote), is not accepted as being satisfactory to support a claim. Psychologists have identified many cognitive errors (of reasoning, perception, memory, etc.) that we all possess which means that we can form many incorrect conclusions about things no matter how sincerely we may believe them.
Common misconceptions:
Skepticism is a belief system
It’s not; it's a methodology. In fact it is quite the opposite of a belief system. Of course skeptics, people who use the skeptical method, often have opinions that are at odds with many people's beliefs; however, that does not make skepticism merely an alternative belief system.
Skepticism is the position of non-belief
It is very common for people to refer to themselves or others as 'skeptics' when they don't accept or believe something. This is not the correct usage of the word regarding scientific skepticism however. As explained above, skepticism is a methodology and as such, claims that are supported will be accepted by skeptics.
Skeptics are closed-minded
This criticism is normally made by those who believe in things that have been disproved or are unproven. Concluding that a claim is false when it fails to stand up to scrutiny is not being closed-minded - quite the opposite, in fact; and assuming or holding the provisional position that a claim is false until proven otherwise is also the correct approach to take (see Burden of Proof above). Forming conclusions based upon the best available evidence does not make one closed-minded simply because this logically-sound position disagrees with someone's belief or desire that their belief were real.
Skeptics do not believe in anything
This misconception probably comes from philosophical skepticism; a branch of philosophy that questions whether absolute knowledge and certainty are possible. Modern skepticism is rational skepticism; the method of doubt and inquiry explained above.
Many people also make a fallacy of equivocation and confuse the word sceptical (to be doubtful) with skepticism (the methodology) and assume that skeptics are simply doubters or disbelievers.
Skepticism is about opposing claims
Skepticism is about examining claims, not opposing them. As explained, skeptics will doubt claims until they can be scrutinised; this, however, is the correct way to deal with new claims. There's no logical reason to accept or reject a claim before it has been examined - hence the suspension of judgement.
Of course skeptics do oppose many claims, such as many involving the paranormal and pseudoscience; this is not simply an automatic opposition to such claims however, it's because such claims have been examined and the supporting evidence does not stand up to scrutiny.
Skeptics are debunkers
Bunk is another word for nonsense and means the opposite of something that is true or factual. To debunk something means to remove the nonsense from it and reveal what is true. Skepticism is not about debunking per se, but debunking is a consequence of critical inquiry. In fact, contrary to popular understanding, the best way of showing that something is true is that it can resist attempts to prove it false: attempting to prove something false is a robust way of testing its validity.
The misconception here is not that skeptics sometimes end up debunking claims; but that the word 'debunker' is often used as a pejorative term. Debunking nonsense ideas, scams, hoaxes and misleading claims is of positive, not negative, value.
It should be made clear, however, that skeptics do not set out with the purpose of debunking claims (i.e. holding a preconceived and unjustified position of a claim's falsity). Some claims will simply end up being debunked as a consequence of skeptical inquiry. That's an important distinction to understand.
Summary
Skepticism is a methodology, not a position on matters. It is a way of examining claims and making decisions. The idea is to apply the rules of logic and reason with critical thinking skills in assessing claims or issues and to form conclusions based on evidence, not on personal preference or prejudice.
These methods make it more likely that those who use skepticism will reach correct conclusions on issues; which, of course, can be of great benefit in all walks of life: personal, business, health matters, recognising scams and misleading claims, finance, etc.
After realising that many people have different ideas of what skepticism is, this is an overview of how skeptics themselves define it - the few skeptics organizations who actually explain what skepticism is have very similar descriptions.
Note the difference between the common usage of skeptic to mean disbeliever/denier and this definition which is more akin to the original Greek meaning of skeptic as inquirer/examiner.
I think it is extremely important to understand this difference; and above all, to communicate this difference to those who don't know it.
We cannot communicate effectively when people have the wrong idea of where we're coming from.
Fantastic, and although I have read this one before, it is still quite thorough. There are a few different types of scepticism, but the one we mainly use is scientific scepticism. It is probably best to not confuse matters further by including the other types of philosophical scepticism. Well done Jig
And another one: Skepticism, a form of evidence-based reasoning, is a way of knowing that weighs evidence and prior plausibility in determining if a claim is true. It doesn't mean simply denying anything that goes against preconceived notions, as the popular usage suggests. A skeptic would happily change his/her mind on a subject if there is strong evidence to the contrary. Skeptics simply demand evidence for any claim, taking nothing at face value.
Learning how to foster a skeptical outlook can make it less likely that a person will be scammed by fraudsters or fall for unproven or non-evidence-based pseudoscience, scientific or historical denialism, and supernaturalism.
What Skepticism is and is Not
Skepticism is not a religion or life philosophy. It tells a person not what to think, but how to know. Skepticism provides time-tested tools used long in science and academia that give the best possibility of finding the truth. As humans live in a materialist world, one of causes and effects governed by known processes and laws, skepticism is using what people know factually about the material world for analysis in the attempt to make up for natural human sensory and interpretive faults.
Skepticism is often wrongly equated with cynicism, being defined as dismissive of new ideas due to arrogance that one knows everything or other ideas aren't worth one's time. A skeptic is not a cynic. It is a skeptic's view that highly implausible claims deserves less time than the plausible, though. Skeptics require evidence for any claim, taking nothing at face value. Every claim needs to prove itself so that those analyzing the claim can make sure it is accurate and therefore a worthwhile idea to hold. Skeptics hold that evidence and plausibility are not too much to ask, and are the best ways to evaluate claims.
The Human Mind/Brain is Imperfect
Humans are by nature imperfect, and therefore have imperfect brains/minds. It is human nature to try to fit new information to preconceived notions, which can damage the ability to truthfully evaluate claims. "Memory focuses on the meaning and then alters the details to fit," explains clinical academic neurologist Steven Novella in the April 5, 2007 NeuroLogica Blog post "The Foibles of Human Memory." Skepticism gives tools anyone can use to know that one's ideas, beliefs, worldviews, etc. are based on reality and not simply what one wants to believe. It is easy to fall into the trap of denying reality when it doesn't fit prior beliefs or, as Dr. Novella explains, what a person's memory thinks is important.
Prior Plausibility
Prior plausibility is known as the cliché, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It requires the strength of evidence to be directly proportional to the evidence that already exists. To determine prior plausibility a skeptic looks at the best, strongest current evidence. Does the new claim fit in with such evidence? If it does, then it is plausible, and although this doesn't by itself make the claim true, it has a greater possibility of being accurate. Since it fits with the current body of knowledge, evidence does not need to be as strong.
On the other hand, does the claim drastically disagree with the current body of evidence? If so, the prior plausibility is much lower. As it is in extraordinary disagreement with the majority of the current evidence, the claim requires extraordinary evidence. Many claims fall somewhere in between, and the strength of evidence needed goes up or down proportional to the plausibility.
Why Skepticism is Important
This is only a basic overview of a few important aspects of skepticism, but it gives a budding skeptic a place to start learning how to be a skeptical critical thinker. Human conceptual abilities are very good, but far from perfect. Skeptics believe that understanding the limitations and how to turn subjectivity into objectivity is the only and best way to come as close as possible to objective truth.
This is great Jig Exactly the kind of sticky that on first entering BP or any skeptical site gives someone a basic understanding and clears up any misconceptions right from the get go. Karma
Post by The Legendary Barb on Sept 8, 2009 18:53:51 GMT
What wonderful posts Jigsaw, I have read them through,and will do so again so that they sink in. I am sometimes a little on the slow side to take in information. I would like to think of myself as an inquirer/examiner. I would like to think I am not too quick to judge others and will always try to see their point of view. Sometimes though people are so dogmatic with their own opinions that they refuse to see the woods for the trees. Karma from me too.
your never too old to set a new goal or dream a new dream[C.S Lewis]
This is awesome and really sums up perfectly my own views of scepticism. Sadly, the vast majority of people I meet do not understand scepticism and are confused about its meaning with most mistaking it for cynicism. I think this article will go some way to making things clearer and explaining this better. It is all very well exposing con artists etc but one of the things we need to do is to explain to people what scepticism is and what sceptics do. This article does that brilliantly. I'll post it on my facebook
"Dont forget to cover your bum, or you'll get a red bum"
This article is very informative, it really lays out, clearly what scepticism is. The sad thing is, I think only sceptics will read it. The majority are so entrenched in their belief that a sceptic must be wrong. I cannot class myself as a sceptic because of my own personal experiences but it does not stop me from trying to find out how it all works, (a pseudo sceptic?) I try to post articles that give explanations, theories. I tried to post the other day an article where scientist are saying that people that believe/religious, are hard wired from birth. The theory is that it kept them in groups for safety. It reminded me of all of these "Spiritual" sites where they go to support each other. I shall keep searching for answers, I'm getting to the age I will find out, one way or other. ;D
Firstly can I say that your avatar scares the sh*t out of me. I don't know who or what it is, but I do know I'll be having nightmares.
Thanks for posting this up, I agree with fluffet - this would be useful for newbies to the forum in terms of understanding (in part) what this forum stands for. It took me a while to figure it out - but then again, I am kinda slow
"You know, I rather like this God fellow. Very theatrical, you know. Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence... gotta get me some of that."
The sad thing is, I think only sceptics will read it.
Well it's really aimed at people who are new to skepticism and/or who are inquisitive about skepticism. So I don't think that's too bad.
The major problem we have in communicating what we say is that almost everyone thinks that skepticism is the position of non-belief; including many people who call themselves skeptics!
Not believing something does not make a person a skeptic; and being a skeptic does not mean that you can't believe/accept something.
Once it is realised that skepticism is the process of critical inquiry and not the position you take on matters, it becomes clear just how pervasive the false notion of skepticism as a position is, and just how badly it affects good skeptical argumentation.
I think that it's extremely important that skepticism is presented properly, especially by those of us who represent it on the internet/in the media/etc., and that it is understood by those who call themselves skeptics.
"Are you a believer or a skeptic?" - we should be jumping on people for making this false dichotomy!!! (Says this non-crusading skeptic) ;D
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Sept 11, 2009 9:04:00 GMT
I am very guilty of using the false dichotomy However I only do so due to ignorance, and also feeling it is easy to do so when talking to believers, i find if i constantly try to correct people and explain such things, the actual message i want to convay is lost.
However i agree that we must explain skepticism and the term skeptic better, and i will endevour to do so.
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
Well it's an uphill battle and one we probably can't win on a large scale but within our own sphere of engagement, we can at least try to educate people as to where we're really coming from.
The trouble is, people think skepticism is the position of doubt or denial and as such is just a simple choice. i.e. you either choose to believe or choose not to believe (in which case you're a 'skeptic') - in other words, they think skepticism is a position of non-thinking, entrenched disbelief!
It isn't helped by the media either. Here's another article on the BBC's website talking about 'climate change skepticism' growing: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8249668.stm
Of course he's talking about non-belief/denial for non-smart reasons, not real skepticism. But this is the sort of article people are constantly exposed to and is why they have such a wrong idea of skepticism.
The really silly thing is that skeptics do accept that climate change is occuring because that's what the evidence is telling us!
Now I don't know if I a sceptic or a believer. The emotional part is a believer and the rational side is looking for proof. ;D
It is so much more comforting to think that there is something after physical? death, this cant be all there is to living, snuffed out, it's got to be more complicated. ;D
Now I don't know if I a sceptic or a believer. The emotional part is a believer and the rational side is looking for proof. ;D
It is so much more comforting to think that there is something after physical? death, this cant be all there is to living, snuffed out, it's got to be more complicated. ;D
I understand what you say Terry but why do you feel that it's has to be more complicated, why do you think that there has to be something beyond physical death?.
There's no proof - yet. I used to really struggle with this myself before I accepted that there actually is no justification or evidence to support for this hope. I live my life to the full, accepting that this is probably all there is and I make the most of every living day. To some this will sound odd and out of sorts with their own beliefs but based on my experience of life and death and having lost both my parents I really have no reason to believe that there is anything other than a long dark sleep - minus dreams or waking up of course - once we die. I hope I'm wrong - who doesn't, and I'd be delighted if it was proved otherwise but we have to go on what we know.
morganp
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
Now I don't know if I a sceptic or a believer. The emotional part is a believer and the rational side is looking for proof. ;D
Well, just superficially doubting things and trying to prove them isn’t skepticism. As you say, for emotional reasons we have a strong tendency to see what we would like to be real rather than what actually is. There probably is a lot of worth in doing that for psychological reasons, but skepticism is about factual knowledge so we need to look at the validity of claims as well as the utility of belief systems.
As with any tool, skepticism can be misused or misapplied. There’s weak skepticism and strong skepticism.
Weak skepticism is where you follow the basic process of doubt and inquiry but you use it to defend or confirm what you already believe or what you want to believe. People who do this are usually uncritically cherry-picking their supporting evidence whilst becoming highly critical of opposing evidence. This means that their stance on the issue is incapable of being changed. This is pseudoskepticism.
Strong skepticism is where critical inquiry is applied to all aspects of a claim; including those you may favour yourself. If the evidence supports your previous conclusion all good and well, but if it doesn’t, you should be prepared to change your stance.
You really need to be able to justify your conclusion on any issue: i.e. be capable of explicitly stating support for your conclusion.
An argument = conclusion + supporting reasons.
If you hold a conclusion on an issue you really should have good supporting reasons for doing so. Good reasons, such as good, empirical evidence, should compel your listener to accept your conclusion.
Poor reasons for believing “X” include things like “X has been around for thousands of years”, “millions of people also believe X”, “I experienced X for myself”, or “I have seen X for myself”.
Good reasons for believing X include things like empirical evidence, citing peer-reviewed science, strong logical deduction, building upon previously accepted theory, and even things like strong metaphor or analogy (which must be valid!)
So a good test here regarding conclusions on issues is not whether you are satisfied with your conclusion but whether you can provide an argument whose supporting reasons should compel others to accept it too.
No one said skepticism was easy! But at least once we start thinking about how to resolve issues at this level, it becomes quite clear that skepticism is not simply the ‘choice of non-belief’, but is in fact, the process of forming provisional (potentially changeable) conclusions that are justified by evidence (supporting reasons).
Morganp I don't really know, maybe because I do tend to be a dreamer. (I have plenty of time) I do make a lot about. "Imagination" on my site, and when I am talking. Everything that has been made by man, has been created by "Imagination." As I said, I am always searching for answers. I have found that mediums/psychics have wonderful imaginations and are great subjects for what I do. They believe what they see and hear, is real, do they create it? does that make it real? It's like these people that see Angels/unicorns/spirit. My imagination does not go that far. ;D
I am of an age when all of my elders etc. are dead, (brown bread) but sad as it may seem there is a certain amount of comfort to be had saying goodnight to them, apologising for what I did or didn't do. Therapeutic? In the article I tried to post, it was suggested that we are hardwired from birth to be religious, gather in groups for support. Thats exactly what these spiritual sites do, they share their worries/ fears. The programme on TV, a while back, took some stick, but that is what they were doing. I have said all along, we are all different. The people on this site, in the main, are deep thinkers? not everyone has the same ability to rationalise everything. They will go along with the majority. I seem to be in between, knowing what you say is the truth but hoping you are wrong. What does make it difficult for me, is that I have had experiences, which I have been unable to explain, which seems to back up the thoughts that there is something paranormal to it all. (contrary to what some might think, I am not stupid) ;D All of my experiences are purely anecdotal so I would not bother to relate them.
I was in the middle of my post when Jigsaw posted his words of wisdom. It demonstrated what I said. He said. An Arguement=Conlusion+ Supporting reasons. Wonderfully rational, and of course true, but people like me have all sorts of fuzzy bits inbetween. ;D It might be lack of education, just followed my peers? lack of independant thought, not now, but then. Still influenced.
