My Love/Hate Relationship with Skepticism

Several friends told me I was insane to even think about hosting  the next Tangled Bank, and given that I have about six and a quarter seconds of free time in each week, they're probably right. But I'm glad I did it, because reading the submissions has been fascinating. And a few of them have set me to thinking about the concept of skepticism as it relates to science.

I tend to be tagged as a highly skeptical person by those who possess little if any skepticism themselves. I like science and facts and studies and evidence-based medicine and all kinds of things that appear to make the magical thinkers get a migraine. Someone else interested in holistic approaches to dog care once snarled at me, loudly and publicly and not at all flatteringly, that "Talking to you is like talking to an allopathic vet!", by which she meant that I didn't buy the snake oil she was peddling without asking pesky and irritating questions about how it supposedly worked and what was in it.

And I know when certain topics come up on the various holistic pet care lists I'm on, the membership groans because they know I'm going to go off on the person posting, because the emperor is, well... nekkid. I know it's going to start an avalanche of angry emails and comments, but the words "colloidal silver" come to mind here.

BUT....

I also have a problem with those for whom skepticism is not a character trait but a hobby. I truly do believe with Herbert Spencer that "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

I think there is some benefit in withholding ultimate judgment about things that seem to make no sense but  also seem to work. I don't blindly believe in all these things,  I would rarely even consider using them. But neither would I ever be so arrogant as to say that just because science cannot at this time explain something, it is impossible, wrong, disproven, or beyond eventual scientific explanation. I have seen some things I can't explain easily. I've had experiences that strike me as convincing, even while my brain is screaming NOOOOOOOOOOOO! at me.

I'll confess I'm more comfortable with serious skeptics than with blind believers. It's just the way my mind works. I like it all to hang together and make sense and fit in with the real world as I understand it.

But now and then I know I'm really an alien in the land of the serious skeptic. I'm not gullible, but I just can't fit in there, and I don't want to. Phrases like "You never know" float uninvited through my mind when I'm confronted with compelling but inexplicable ideas. 

Of course, as Bertrand Russell famously said, "When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others." The list of inexplicable things I still have an open mind on is very, very short. But it's not empty, because as he also said, "The world is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper, " suggesting we from time to time hang a question mark on our cherished beliefs. I think that's a good attitude to have, whichever end of the skepticism spectrum you feel most at home on.

Comments

[coturnix]

Well, some true believers call themselves 'skeptics', as in "global warming skeptics" or "evolution skeptics", thus giving the skepticism a bad name.

And of course, "You never know" is not how serious skeptics think. What B.Russell said is much closer - distinguishing wheat from teh chaff and going with the wheat until better evidence forces you to change your mind.

BTW, I am hosting the "Skeptic's Circle" next week, so send an entry if you are in a mood for such a topic - look through the archives for examples of some excellent skepticism and for inspiration.

[drakvl]

Do you remember the TV show Sightings? It was full of all sorts of things people would consider a bit crazy, with a particular fondness for UFO and ghost sightings. I remember one episode where they discussed synaesthesia, something which I later learned was a legitimate, well-documented medical condition. This sort of thing is why I don't like completely dismissing things. Granted, I'm a math student, and not studying the sciences, so I don't really have to worry about Occam's razor.

[coturnix]

I've been very interested in synaesthesia for quite a while now. But he point is, I guess, to learn what sources to trust - certainly not the TV!

[Larry Ayers]

My attitudes are very similar to yours, though I've never explicated them as thoroughly as you have here. I also am fond of the scientific method, reproducible results, etc., but do withhold judgement on certain inexplicable experiences I have had.

I'm also well aware of just how easily one can fool oneself, that powerful human urge to believe the improbable!

[drakvl]

Actually, my point was that even bad sources can luck onto sound science every now and again.