Skepticism

[Received]

Why not be skeptical about our skepticism?

No, really.

 

[bhsmte]

Why not be skeptical about our skepticism?

No, really.

Skeptics look for rational, logical reasons and evidence before they believe in something or believe someone is telling the truth. They are typically very analytical thinkers and questioning comes along with a desire to understand.

If someone becomes skeptical of skepticism they have had in regards to a particular issue, it typically means they have seen evidence that has triggered this and maybe a tad more evidence, will remove that skepticism all together.

 

[Received]

Skeptics look for rational, logical reasons and evidence before they believe in something or believe someone is telling the truth. They are typically very analytical thinkers and questioning comes along with a desire to understand.

If someone becomes skeptical of skepticism they have had in regards to a particular issue, it typically means they have seen evidence that has triggered this and maybe a tad more evidence, will remove that skepticism all together.

Oh, I'm a huge fan of being skeptical. That's not specifically what I'm questioning, though. I'm questioning why we aren't skeptical toward skepticism. If everything should be given doubt (skepticism), why do we hold this for everything except our skepticism itself?

 

[WisdomTree]

You two are wrong, school of scepticism is all about denying that one can attain knowledge which is true since the Infinite Regress of Reasoning essentially nullifies every effort from the Justified True Beliefs.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If everything should be given doubt (skepticism)

While that may be one form of radical skepticism, more commonly (IMO) skepticism means that claims should not be blindly accepted, but only accepted after sufficiently good evidence is presented.

I think the follies of various forms of nonsense are adequate evidence to accept skepticism itself.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why not be skeptical about our skepticism?

No, really.

Who says we aren't? It's not like skepticism is some arbitrary random guess - it's a tool that's been tested and shown to be a good way to separate bad ideas from good ones.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, I'm a huge fan of being skeptical. That's not specifically what I'm questioning, though. I'm questioning why we aren't skeptical toward skepticism. If everything should be given doubt (skepticism), why do we hold this for everything except our skepticism itself?

I think your trying a little too hard here.

 

[Received]

I think your trying a little too hard here.

In what way?

 

[bhsmte]

In what way?

Making it more complicated than it really is.

A skeptic is typically skeptical until they have reason not to be skeptical, and that typically means seeing objective evidence to not be skeptical.

To be skeptical of skepticism makes no sense. It basically states; I shouldn't be so skeptical and should just accept whatever without evidence. In that case, a person would cease to be a skeptic, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Received]

Edit. More later. Work.

 

[quatona]

Why not be skeptical about our skepticism?

You may want to give an example:
A claim that you meet with skepticism, and how your skepticism towards this your skepticism would manifest.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Pyrrhonian skeptics are skeptical of dogmatic skepticism. They don't make the self defeating claim that knowledge is impossible but merely use the tool of skepticism to obtain ataraxia or peace of mind :

Misconceptions about Pyrrhonism

 

[Paradoxum]

Why do you think people don't question skepticism? Being skeptical doesn't mean rejecting the belief does it?

 

[Davian]

Oh, I'm a huge fan of being skeptical. That's not specifically what I'm questioning, though. I'm questioning why we aren't skeptical toward skepticism. If everything should be given doubt (skepticism), why do we hold this for everything except our skepticism itself?

As I said in your other thread, how do you lower the bar enough to allow for things like personal deities to jump over, without also leaving the planet covered in giant immaterial marshmallows? I'd hate to have to drive through those on the freeway.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why not be skeptical about our skepticism?

The first question that comes to my mind when I read a question such as this is: what sort of skepticism? Scientific skepticism? Epistemological skepticism? Pyrrhic skepticism?

It seems to me that the answers will vary according to type. In the case of scientific skepticism, there is no need to be skeptical about that, since scientific method is not itself a subject of inquiry in science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

Oh goody, this again. And I have to say, I'm surprised at the source, although less so these days.

Of course one can be skeptical about skepticism. It is the sort of sophomoric (if that) quandary up there with "what if we're really in the Matrix, maaaan". Where does it get you? Nowhere. And everyone has to make the same assumptions to get around it - that existence is real and consistently understandable.

You're assuming that people who express skepticism haven't already been through this.

 

[Received]

As I said in your other thread, how do you lower the bar enough to allow for things like personal deities to jump over, without also leaving the planet covered in giant immaterial marshmallows? I'd hate to have to drive through those on the freeway.

Seroquel works pretty well for that.

 

[Received]

Oh goody, this again. And I have to say, I'm surprised at the source, although less so these days.

Please don't condescend, G. I have high respect for you, please return it. And this was an idea I created between clients at work -- nothing too serious, but I still think there's something there. If you think there are any deeper philosophical (or theological) assumptions underlying these easy threads lately, please state them as a response.

Of course one can be skeptical about skepticism. It is the sort of sophomoric (if that) quandary up there with "what if we're really in the Matrix, maaaan". Where does it get you? Nowhere. And everyone has to make the same assumptions to get around it - that existence is real and consistently understandable.

So you're saying that because something works pragmatically that we have to just accept it just as a method in ascertaining truth just because it works pragmatically?

You're assuming that people who express skepticism haven't already been through this.

Hey, it's anecdotal (I don't know of any quantitative, randomized studies that reveal a specific number of skeptics who have applied their method to their method), but I'm yet to meet one. Not even Descartes, to my mind, and we all know how right this guy was.

 

[Received]

It's something like this:

Skepticism means suspending judgment until a certain standard of proof is fulfilled. This standard of proof is much higher than allowing something to be accepted just because it works. That is, skepticism doesn't work pragmatically, but rather its standard applies to the *truthfulness* of something. When we're skeptical, we're looking at the content of premises (veracity), not their function or utility (pragmatism).

Further, skepticism is a philosophy, and being a philosophy it's general, so it applies to everything, and that's the beauty of a philosophy or system of thought. But if skepticism is skeptical of all things, it would be skeptical of the implicit claim that "you should suspend judgment until a certain standard of proof is fulfilled."

The thing is, it isn't skeptical of this. It can't fulfill this demand. And a universe where a standard can't validate itself (whether science, rationalism, empiricism, etc.), means (and this is important) that the standard is accepted for reasons other than truthfulness or veracity. My guess is that these standards are accepted because 1) they work, or 2) because they "feel right" (i.e., are axiomatic or instinctive). Or both.

Yes, someone please play philosophical shrink and tell me how I'm trying to fit God into the door here. Go ahead.

 

[Received]

The first question that comes to my mind when I read a question such as this is: what sort of skepticism? Scientific skepticism? Epistemological skepticism? Pyrrhic skepticism?

It seems to me that the answers will vary according to type. In the case of scientific skepticism, there is no need to be skeptical about that, since scientific method is not itself a subject of inquiry in science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'm probably botching it, but I think Hume's response to this problem in the Enquiry/Understanding was to appeal to (what I call) instinctive beliefs as a way of getting out of the problem of resulting in the Pyrrhics (as he saw them).

As for scientific skepticism not itself a subject of inquiry, why not? That would mean we accept a standard of truth (or fact) that itself must by definition be based in something beyond truth or fact. Which means pragmatism, what works, therefore what's axiomatic or feels right, or just what works period.