Skepticism



Philosophical skepticism (UK spelling, scepticism), or pyrrhonism, is a philosophical position that refrains from making truth claims. A skeptic does not claim that truth is impossible (which would be a truth claim). The word is commonly used to describe other philosophies which appear similar, for instance "academic" skepticism, which was an ancient variant of platonism according to which knowledge of truth was impossible. Empiricism is a closely related position which can be seen as a pragmatic compromise between skepticism and nomothetic science; skepticism is sometimes refered to as "radical empiricism."

Additionally, the word "skeptic" is commonly used in today's vernacular to describe someone who habitually doubts commonly accepted ideas. It can also refer to any position of doubt, as in "This page contains statements about which one might reasonably be skeptical." Hence the heading of this page warning about the non-neutral point of view in which this page is written. For this, a healthy dose of skepticism is recommended.

Variance in spelling
The two spellings of the word depend originally on whether Greek (skepsis) or Latin (scepticus) is taken as a model. Much as with -ize/-ise endings for words, both spellings are correct, but skepticism is normally used in North American English while scepticism is usually preferred in Commonwealth English (with some exceptions). The Australian Skeptics, despite using Commonwealth English, use the North American spelling for their organisation, perhaps to distance themselves from the historic definition of scepticism which is more akin to cynicism which Australian Skeptics view as the polar opposite of Skepticism.

Philosophical skepticism
Philosophical skepticism originated in ancient Greek philosophy. One of its first proponents was Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360-275 B.C.), who travelled 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, by which 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.

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. Whereas 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.

Skeptics and cynics
Scientific skeptics are often confused with, or even denounced as, cynics. However, useful 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, each represents a fundamentally different philosophical approach to understanding the nature of the world.

Many critics accuse scientific skeptics of being "closed-minded" or of inhibiting scientific progress. However, some supporters of scientific skepticism argue that these criticisms come from pseudoscientists, paranormalists, and spiritualists who are motivated to discredit rational investigation of their claims.

Debunkers
Debunkers are a particular group of skeptics who are adept at exposing the truth behind the extraordinary claims of charlatans. Famous debunkers include James Randi, Michael Shermer, Basava Premanand, Penn and Teller and Harry Houdini.

Since the issues of dispute being treated usually require deep understanding of a subject, heated discussions may arise in the public based more on one's own opinion rather than factual analysis. Flame wars can arise in the public, with debunkers offended by the deception of charlatans and the gullibility of their public, and the latter ones offended by the allegations of the debunkers.

Scientific skepticism as Inertia
Scientific skepticism is both useful to, and required by scientists. As many new scientific papers contain material errors that render their conclusions incorrect, 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 corroboration 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 sombre 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.

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.

Religious and Scientific skepticism
(The first two quotes are often erroneously attributed to Carl Sagan.)


 * "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi


 * "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


 * "I think therefore I am." - Rene Descartes

Philosophical skeptics

 * Sextus Empiricus
 * David Hume

Scientific skeptics

 * Isaac Asimov
 * Stephen Barrett
 * Martin Gardner
 * Harry Houdini
 * Philip J. Klass
 * James Randi
 * Carl Sagan
 * Michael Shermer
 * Marcello Truzzi


 * Outstanding skeptics of the 20th century - Skeptical Inquirer Magazine

Also see the list at Debunker.

Essays on 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.


 * Peter Suber, Classical Skepticism. An exposition of Pyrrho's skepticism through the writings of Sextus Empiricus.

Organizations dedicated to skepticism

 * Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
 * The Skeptics Society
 * James Randi Educational Foundation
 * Rationalist International

TV shows and documentaries based upon skepticism

 * MythBusters
 * Bullshit!