My Rant Against "Skepticism".

[Illuminaughty]

A good number of the people who use the term "skeptic" to describe themselves wouldn't know what skepticism was it if it bit them on the nose. People get the wrong idea that simply because they are using logic to debunk every belief other than their own that this somehow makes them skeptics. That's not how it works.

If you claim to know that another person is wrong because you already have all the right answers and the other person disagreed with them then you are not a skeptic.

If you are afriad to use words and phrases like probably, appears to me, in my opinon, etc. you probably aren't a skeptic. If you claim to be able to make declarative statements of absolute "truth" on the issue at hand then you are not a skeptic.

Another important thing to realize is that skepticism doesn't equal rationalism. A skeptic is skeptical even of the power of rational thought.

The term skeptic has really been hijacked lately it seems. I would suggest people who use the term to describe themselves go do a little reading about real skeptics like Pyrrho or Sextus Empiricus. Robert Anton Wilson does a good job pointing out the problems with modern pseudo-skepticism too so they might want to check out some his books.

 

[Davian]

Wiki says:

"Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.

Philosophical skepticism is an overall approach that requires all information to be well supported by evidence. Classical philosophical skepticism derives from the 'Skeptikoi', a school who "asserted nothing". Adherents of Pyrrhonism, for instance, suspend judgment in investigations. Skeptics may even doubt the reliability of their own senses. Religious skepticism, on the other hand is "doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)". Most scientists are empirical skeptics, who admit the possibility of knowledge based on evidence, but hold that new evidence may always overturn these findings."

Was there something in there that you had a problem with, or were you speaking to something else?

As for being skeptical of the 'power of rational thought', I would agree that we cannot trust what may be considered 'common sense'. Perhaps you could provide some examples of what you mean by that phrase?

 

[Gadarene]

A good number of the people who use the term "skeptic" to describe themselves wouldn't know what skepticism was it if it bit them on the nose. People get the wrong idea that simply because they are using logic to debunk every idea other than their own that this somehow makes them skeptics. That's not how it works.

I'd agree - it's a bias that should be avoided by anyone honestly seeking it - I'd say the most egregious example of this is climate change sceptics.

If you claim to know that another person is wrong because you already have all the right answers and the other person disagreed with them then you are not a sceptic.

Indeed.

If you are afriad to use words and phrases like probably, appears to me, in my opinon, etc. you probably aren't a skeptic. If you claim to be able to make declarative statements of absolute "truth" on the issue at hand then you are not a skeptic.

Another important thing to realize is that skepticism doesn't equal rationalism. A skeptic is skeptical even of the power of rational thought.

The term skeptic has really been hijacked lately it seems. I would suggest people who use the term to describe themselves go do a little reading about real skeptics like Phyrro or Sextus Empiricus. Robert Anton Wilson does a good job pointing out the problems with modern pseudo-skepticism too so they might want to check out some his books.

Well....I'd argue that a lot of sceptics have been sceptical about scepticism, but as with most things of that kind, you have to make some assumptions in order to function, as does everyone confronted by intractable philosophical problems (brain-in-a-vat etc).

It's not that sceptics don't do this, it's just that being sceptical about scepticism all the time doesn't really get you very far beyond intellectual self-abuse.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'm skeptical of the OP

 

[Gadarene]

I'm skeptical of the OP

I'm sceptical of the OP and of you

 

[Illuminaughty]

Was there something in there that you had a problem with, or were you speaking to something else?

No. Nothing wrong with that definition of skepticism. I had a little to much Kava and Monster energy drink to drink this morning and I was looking through a "skeptic" page that was discussing things like telepathy, traditional Chinese medicine, UFOs and various things like that. It was filled with dogmatic statements and knowledge claims that really seemed the exact opposite of real skepticism and it got me going on a rant lol.

 

[Illuminaughty]

A skeptic might say the following on telepathy for example:

I've never had an experience that I would classify as telepathic and I don't find the arguments others make in favor of it's existence that convincing.

or

I've had experiences that I would classify as telepathic so I believe that telepathy may very well exist.

This statement on the other hand isn't very skeptical at all:

Telepathy does not exist.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'm sceptical of the OP and of you

I'm skeptical of your skepticism!

 

[Illuminaughty]

I'm skeptical of your skepticism regarding his skepticism.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't know why someone would want to call them self a skeptic. It just seems to valueless. I would much rather consider what I am rather than what I lack. Hence why I have a humanism symbol, not an atheist one.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't know why someone would want to call them self a skeptic. It just seems to valueless. I would much rather consider what I am rather than what I lack. Hence why I have a humanism symbol, not an atheist one.

Skepticism is simply an idea that you shouldn't believe things until you have proper evidence. There's plenty of value in that idea.

And I should add Skepticism is not Atheism.... however application of skepticism towards religious claims will lead to concluding the Atheistic position is the justified position to hold.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I don't know why someone would want to call them self a skeptic. It just seems to valueless. I would much rather consider what I am rather than what I lack. Hence why I have a humanism symbol, not an atheist one.

Pyrrho thought that embracing skepticism had therapeutic value and lead to ataraxia.

Ataraxia (Ἀταραξία "tranquility") is a Greek term used by Pyrrho and Epicurus for a lucid state of robust tranquility, characterized by ongoing freedom from distress and worry. Dictionary.com defines Ataraxia as: a state of freedom from emotional disturbance and anxiety; tranquillity.

Ataraxia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The dominant impression that they [Pyrrhonians] convey as a group is of an extraordinary impassivity or imperturbability; with rare exceptions (which he himself is portrayed as regretting), Pyrrho is depicted as maintaining his calm and untroubled attitude no matter what happens to him. This extends even to extreme physical pain—he is reported not to have flinched when subjected to the horrific techniques of ancient surgery—but it also encompasses dangers such as being on a ship in a storm. (This is not to say that he did not avoid such troubles if he could, as suggested by the apocryphal stories mentioned in the previous paragraph; it is just to say that he did not lose his composure in the face of life's inevitable hardships.) There is another aspect to this untroubled attitude as well. In numerous anecdotes Pyrrho is shown as unconcerned with adhering to the normal conventions of society; he wanders off for days on end by himself, and he performs tasks that would normally be left to social inferiors, such as housework and even washing a pig. Here, too, the suggestion is that he does not care about things that ordinary people do care about — in this case, the disapproval of others. (The passage from Diogenes quoted in the previous section, according to which Pyrrho held “that human beings do everything by convention and habit” is not necessarily in conflict with this; by ‘human beings’ Pyrrho might have meant ordinary human beings, among whom he would not have included himself.)

Pyrrho (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
​

I get the impression that it was almost a type of spiritual discipline meant to free the mind from enslavement to concepts and theories. He was said to have by been influenced by the gymnosophist or naked philosophers of India too.

 

[Illuminaughty]

double post

 

[Paradoxum]

Skepticism is simply an idea that you shouldn't believe things until you have proper evidence. There's plenty of value in that idea.

And I should add Skepticism is not Atheism.... however application of skepticism towards religious claims will lead to concluding the Atheistic position is the justified position to hold.

I'm not against being skeptical and it does have value, I just wouldn't want to define my worldview by it.

Pyrrho thought that embracing skepticism had therapeutic value and lead to ataraxia.

Ataraxia (Ἀταραξία "tranquility") is a Greek term used by Pyrrho and Epicurus for a lucid state of robust tranquility, characterized by ongoing freedom from distress and worry. Dictionary.com defines Ataraxia as: a state of freedom from emotional disturbance and anxiety; tranquillity.

Ataraxia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The dominant impression that they [Pyrrhonians] convey as a group is of an extraordinary impassivity or imperturbability; with rare exceptions (which he himself is portrayed as regretting), Pyrrho is depicted as maintaining his calm and untroubled attitude no matter what happens to him. This extends even to extreme physical pain—he is reported not to have flinched when subjected to the horrific techniques of ancient surgery—but it also encompasses dangers such as being on a ship in a storm. (This is not to say that he did not avoid such troubles if he could, as suggested by the apocryphal stories mentioned in the previous paragraph; it is just to say that he did not lose his composure in the face of life's inevitable hardships.) There is another aspect to this untroubled attitude as well. In numerous anecdotes Pyrrho is shown as unconcerned with adhering to the normal conventions of society; he wanders off for days on end by himself, and he performs tasks that would normally be left to social inferiors, such as housework and even washing a pig. Here, too, the suggestion is that he does not care about things that ordinary people do care about — in this case, the disapproval of others. (The passage from Diogenes quoted in the previous section, according to which Pyrrho held “that human beings do everything by convention and habit” is not necessarily in conflict with this; by ‘human beings’ Pyrrho might have meant ordinary human beings, among whom he would not have included himself.)

Pyrrho (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
​

I get the impression that it was almost a type of spiritual discipline meant to free the mind from enslavement to concepts and theories. He was said to have by been influenced by the gymnosophist or naked philosophers of India too.

Well I don't doubt that being skeptical can be good, but I'm just saying I wouldn't want to define myself by it.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I've probably been influenced by skepticism and I can empathize with the idea of suspending judgment to obtain tranquility of mind but I'm not sure I would actually call myself a skeptic either.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I'm going to go off on a tangent now but I was the one who started the thread so I guess I'm allowed.

I saw a lot of similarities between some of the statements of Zhuangzi and the Pyrrhonian skeptics. I've been really getting into Daoist philosophy lately.

Take this view attributed to Pyrrho by Diogenese:

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
​

And compare it with this from Zhuangzi:

What is It is also Other, what is Other is also It. There they say "That's it , that's not" from one point of view, here we say "That's it, that's not" from another point of view. are they really It and Other?

​

A book I was reading recently went in the skeptical direction with Zhuangzi too:

An increasing number of studies in recent years have read passages such as this as a powerful challenge to our ability to interpret the world correctly or to make assured value judgements about it. Peerenboom, to take our example, argues that the relativist / perspectivist implications of this work represent an attack on all foundational epistemologies which claim to be able to to discover objective truth, and that from Zhuangzi's point of view there is no escape from any given perspective in order to verify one's own theories or beliefs, no access to any transcendent realm of values with which to underpin one's actions. In epistemological terms, this means that Zhuangzi's approach, 'manifests a powerful incapacity to understand, a nurtured inability to understand what seems so evidently true to most people.' and continually questions "cherished beliefs about the seemingly obvious, such as the distinction between waking and dreaming and between knowledge and ignorance.' In linguistic terms, it implies that there are no ultimate or permanent means for validating the discriminations and categorizations we make in language, for there is no perspective-free way of carrying out such tasks, no independent or trans-historical standpoint from which to judge. Where dispute occurs there can be no final resolution since 'words mean what the debaters choose to make them means,' and there points of view are in effect incommensurable in the sense that there is no independent object or transcendent viewpoint from which to judge the relative merits of the different uses of language."

-The Tao of the West, Western Transformations of Taoist Thought
​

 

[Brady111]

Skepticism is simply an idea that you shouldn't believe things until you have proper evidence. There's plenty of value in that idea.

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here. I find that the word "skepticism" has been hi-jacked too; and I think Dave has a good point in the above. What I find is that most so-caled skeptics today only attempt to follow the above where it suits them. For instance, they do not attempt to deal with the skepticism of David Hume.

Hume gave arguments that we cannot know cause and effect is true and we cannot know that our perceptions correspond to an external, material world.

There are three options for dealing with Hume:

1) Show him wrong; answer his arguments.
2) Blindly believe in cause and effect and the correspondence of perceptions to external things, without evidence or argument.
3) Jump into epistemological nihilism.

I find most of today's "skeptics," go with option 2 and avoid Dave's above suggestion.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here. I find that the word "skepticism" has been hi-jacked too; and I think Dave has a good point in the above. What I find is that most so-caled skeptics today only attempt to follow the above where it suits them. For instance, they do not attempt to deal with the skepticism of David Hume.

I agree.

There are three options for dealing with Hume:

1) Show him wrong; answer his arguments.
2) Blindly believe in cause and effect and the correspondence of perceptions to external things, without evidence or argument.
3) Jump into epistemological nihilism.

I'm not sure those are the only options though. Couldn't you also embrace epistemological agnosticism for example.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'm skeptical of this whole thread, and all post in it.

 

[The Engineer]

I'm skeptical of this whole thread, and all post in it.

Why?