The circle continues. You're using one of the definitions that leads to the least nonsense, whereas my starting point involved a definition used in a particular way that is nonsensical, leading to a conclusion which revealed its nonsense.
Yes, indeed, I am charitable that way. I am convinced that being charitable that way is a necessary prerequisite for even trying to understand. When people make a statement, I am generally assuming they are trying so say something meaningful and are not out to produce nonsense (no matter how strange or nonsensical the statement may look at first when I apply the definitions that I am familiar with).
I could easily prove any given statement nonsensical, if only I look long and hard enough for certain definitions of words used in a definition (or of words used in the definition of the definition of those words).
I am charitable in that I am assuming people who make a statement want to communicate something meaningful. Upon further asking them questions, it may turn out that they are using terms very unusually, that they aren´t using them consistently, that they inadvertantly have fallen victim to logical fallacies (and thereby created a statement that doesn´t intelligibly reflect what they actually what they meant to communicate).
In the end it may turn out that I might agree with what they have been trying to communicate although I don´t agree with the way they have stated it. Only if everything else fails I will end up with the conclusion that they meant to communicate nonsense.
I must say that I am wondering why people (like you) whom I have been generally observing approaching statements that way too, at some point start using the opposite approach. I perceive that as the cancellation of a silent agreement - an agreement which, in my world, is crucial for even starting a conversation.
I am naturally charitable in that I am assuming the person opposite refers to the definition of "fan" that renders the statement he makes meaningful.(Heck, even if a person told me that he has changed the four canaries on his car and replaced them by winter-canaries, the first thing I am assuming is that he actually doesn´t mean "canaries" but "tires". Or that he trying some sort of surreal poetry on me.)
When you make a statement ("being skeptical towards skepticism") that´s (if applying any definition that I am aware of, and if you are using the "skeptic-"s in it consistently) is immediately self-refuting, I am charitable in that (although I am sure that in the end I will keep insisting that the way you have worded it is not a good choice) I am assuming you actually want to communicate something non-self-refuting, something meaningful. So I start asking questions like "Can you give me an example of that approach in action?" or "What´s the definition of "skeptic-" for purposes of your statement?".
And, alas, I end up learning what you actually mean: Being radically skeptical is not the preferable approach to
all things, and it doesn´t guarantee you the truth for its result, and that it isn´t a "panacea to life".
I have no problem whatsoever agreeing with this tenet.
However, I will still point out that, fortunately, no school of skepticism makes that claim (so you are pre-emptively barking up a non-existent tree).
Now, you have been providing a Wiki-article in defense of your idea that this is how "skepticism" is defined but unfortunately nowhere in the article does it say anything to that effect. Au contraire, it clearly distinguishes between "skepticism" as a colloquial umbrella term used for any questiong attitude towards a certain truth claim ("I am skeptical
about this truth claim...", i.e. whenever someone is skeptical about
one claim, this is covered by "skepticism") and "skepticism" as a technical term for a systematic approach; it goes on to distinguish between different fields and versions of skepticism (philosophical skepticism, scientific skepticism, religious skepticism...) and the different schools of these forms of skepticism throughout the centuries.
None of these definitions amount to what you are making out as "skepticism".
Definitions are what they are only in a context, which implies people who use the term, which implies psychology. To critique a term always means critiquing one definition behind the term, which means critiquing the people who would use it.
Yes, sure. However when you end up appealing to your psychology skills (and particularly when you claim that your psychology skills have lead to the conclusion that a considerable amount of self-professed skeptics use "skepticism" in a definition that is nowhere to be found in the dictionaries) I´d still expect you to be able to produce the observations you are interpreting "psychologically", as well as the context in which you feel this "psychological" interpretation suggests itself.
And even if you will produce one or two anecdotal examples in which this interpretation suggests itself, this is surely not enough to constitute a problem for skepticism in general (not any more than constituting a problem for any other idea just because there are a handful of people who obviously use the term for it in an unusual way).
Hence, your appeal to another definition is disagreeing pointlessly, given that your definition is one that would (likely) clear up the mess I'm attempting to reveal in the first place.
No, frankly, I am disputing that the mess you are attempting to reveal exists, in the first place.
And, while we are at psychological conclusions: If, after long considerations of facts, definitions etc. that haven´t helped substantiating his idea a person finally is left with appealing to his own "psychological interpretations" of behaviours and contexts (without being able or willing to at least produce examples for those behaviours and contexts), I am skeptical towards the validity of his idea, and I am starting to wonder about the actual motives for the desire to create a problem that he can´t even demonstrate existing.
