Skepticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Please see discussion on the talk page.

Occam's razor "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity" is a central tenet of skeptical thought.

Skepticism (British spelling: Scepticism) can mean:

Philosophical skepticism - a philosophical position in which people choose critically to examine whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have absolutely true knowledge;
Religious or Scientific skepticism - a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of extraordinary claims, and seeks to disprove them using the scientific method.

Additionally, the word "skeptic" is commonly used in today's vernacular to describe someone who habitually doubts commonly accepted ideas.

1 Philosophical skepticism
2 Religious and Scientific Skepticism
3 Quotations
- 3.1 Religious and Scientific Skepticism
4 Famous skeptics
5 Essays criticizing famous skeptics
6 Organizations dedicated to skepticism
7 TV shows and documentaries based upon skepticism
8 External links
9 References

[edit]

Philosophical skepticism

Philosophical skepticism originated in ancient Greek philosophy. One of its first proponents was Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360-275 B.C.), who traveled and studied as far as India, and propounded the adoption of 'practical' skepticism. Subsequently, in the 'New Academy' Arcesilaos (c. 315-241 B.C.) and Carneades (c. 213-129 B.C.) developed more theoretical perspectives, whereby conceptions of absolute truth and falsity were refuted. Carneades criticised the views of the Dogmatists, especially supporters of Stoicism, asserting that absolute certainty of knowledge is impossible. Sextus Empiricus (c. A.D. 200), the main authority for Greek skepticism, developed the position further, incorporating aspects of empiricism into the basis for asserting knowledge.

Greek skeptics criticised the Stoics, accusing them of dogmatism. For the skeptics, the logical mode of argument was untenable, as it relied on propositions which could not be said to be either true or false without relying on further propositions. This was the regress argument, whereby every proposition must rely on other propositions in order to maintain its validity. In addition, the skeptics argued that two propositions could not rely on each other, as this would create a circular argument (as p implies q and q implies p). For the skeptics logic was thus an inadequate measure of truth which could create as many problems as it claimed to have solved. Truth was not, however, necessarily unobtainable, but rather an idea which did not yet exist in a pure form. Although skepticism was accused of denying the possibility of truth, in actual fact it appears to have mainly been a critical school which merely claimed that logicians had not discovered truth.

[edit]

Religious and Scientific Skepticism

Religious skepticism and scientific skepticism are not actually related to philosophical Skepticism. Most people who are skeptical of claims of the paranormal and supernatural are not adherents of classical philosophical Skepticism. Where as a philosophical Skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, a religious or scientific skeptic merely seeks proof before accepting extraordinary claims. Scientific skeptics employ critical thinking.

Religious skeptics often focus on the core tenets of religions, such as the existence of divine beings or reports of earthly miracles, while scientific skeptics tend to target cryptozoology, UFO encounters, and alternative science. Specifically when critics of controversial religious, scientific or paranormal claims are said to be skeptical, this only refers to their taking a position of doubt.

[edit]

Skeptics and cynics

Scientific skeptics are often confused with, or even denounced as, cynics. However, valid skeptical criticism must involve an objective and methodological examination of the subject. Cynicism, on the other hand, is a viewpoint that maintains a generally negative attitude toward human motivations and sincerity. While the two positions are not mutually exclusive, and skeptics may also be cynics, each represents a fundamentally different philosophy about the nature of the world.

Many critics accuse scientific skeptics of being "closed-minded" or of inhibiting scientific progress. While such critics may occasionally be correct, frequently the accusations are simply attempts by pseudoscientists, paranormalists, and spiritualists to discredit their own critics without having to provide evidence to prove their claims.

[edit]

Debunkers

Debunkers are a particular group of religious and scientific skeptics who are adept at exposing the truth behind the extraordinary claims of charlatans. Famous debunkers include James Randi, Basava Premanand, Penn and Teller and Harry Houdini. Many debunkers become controversial figures because they are usually intelligent, opinionated, and vocal about their disbelief. When they challenge beliefs that do not have a sufficient body of evidence to prove them, they frequently offend those who do believe.

Critics of debunkers may say they are merely seeking fame, while their supporters are more likely to say that they are crusaders for truth; however these are not mutually exclusive motivations.

In particular, many pseudoscientists are quick to attack Debunkers because of their resistance to their fringe ideas and theories which the scientific establishment does not accept.

[edit]

Scientific Skepticism as Inertia

Scientific skepticism is both useful to and required by, scientists. As most new scientific papers contain material errors that render their conclusions incorrect^[1], uncritical acceptance of all new discoveries would quickly bog down scientific progress. The bias against new ideas and unusual inventions tends to quickly weed out the hoaxes and experimental flukes. While such a cautious approach towards new ideas may mean that some ideas are initially dismissed, independent corroberation is rarely difficult for legitimate discoveries. Controversy is common among scientists when new hypotheses are first presented, until reproducibility can ensure that experimental results can be repeated according to the scientific method. As a consequence, many scientists reject all new discoveries until the results have been independently confirmed. This may seem extreme, but in addition to honest mistakes in experimentation or statistical analysis, there are also charlatans who seek to profit from the momentary fame of a false discovery.

In January 1905, more than a year after Wilbur and Orville Wright had flown their historic first flight at Kitty Hawk on December 17, 1903, Scientific American magazine carried an article doubting "alleged" flights that the Wrights claimed to have made. With somber authority, the magazine cited as its main reasons for doubting the Wrights the fact that they had not invited the American press to cover the alleged flights, that they refused to disclose the details of their flying machines, and that they were unwilling to repeat the demonstration for verification purposes. Critics of skeptics like to point to this as an example of how scientists slow down the acceptance of new inventions, however the Wright Brothers were intentionally keeping their inventions secret until they could achieve fully controlled flight, mostly to keep their competitors from appropriating their inventions. Furthermore, Scientific American had, most likely, already seen dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of claims of achieving flight in the years before the Wrights made their breakthrough.

Most revolutionary modern day inventions, such as the scanning tunneling microscope, invented in 1981, are subject to intense skepticism and even ridicule when they are first announced. However, those inventions which can survive the gauntlet of disbelief are just as quickly accepted. For example, less than a year after being laughed off a stage in Australia during a presentation on their new microscope, Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer won the Nobel Prize in physics.

[edit]

Quotations

[edit]

Religious and Scientific Skepticism

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.", Carl Sagan.

"Keeping an open mind is a virtue—but not so open that your brains fall out", James Oberg.

"A wise skepticism is the first attribute of a good critic", James Russell Lowell

[edit]

Famous skeptics

Philosophical Skeptics

Scientific Skeptics

[edit]

Essays criticizing famous skeptics

A critique of Gardner, "In the Name of Skepticism: Martin Gardner's Misrepresentations of General Semantics," by Bruce I. Kodish, appeared in General Semantics Bulletin, Number 71, 2004. The Bulletin is published by the Institute of General Semantics.

[edit]