If you're trying to find out more about skeptics, there's always the dictionary.
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy.
1. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
2. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.
What's particularly interesting is that a search of merely the term "skeptic" does not first produce a link to a dictionary definition, but The Skeptics Society itself.
The Skeptics Society is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) scientific and educational organization whose mission is to engage leading experts in investigating the paranormal, fringe science, pseudoscience, and extraordinary claims of all kinds, promote critical thinking, and serve as an educational tool for those seeking a sound scientific viewpoint. Our contributors—leading scientists, scholars, investigative journalists, historians, professors and teachers—are top experts in their fields. It is our hope that our efforts go a long way in promoting critical thinking and lifelong inquisitiveness in all individuals.
Now, I read their brief introduction fully, but I'll admit up front that I didn't read their entire manifesto. Not that I'll be criticizing The Skeptics Society in-depth - and only some of their claims were particularly questionable. Here are just a few bullet points about what it means to be a skeptic, according to a society full of them:
- Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims.
- It is the application of reason to any and all ideas.
- Skepticism is a method, not a position.
- We must see compelling evidence before we believe.
So, basically, what you could expect from a skeptic is someone who doesn't accept a claim without first analyzing it. It's not your final stance on a matter, but the introductory phase - the part right before you formulate your belief, where you find reasons to believe or disbelieve it - or maybe still not know for sure. At the end of the day, "being skeptical" doesn't replace belief or disbelief - it's a separate situation altogether. Realistically, you should move from being skeptical about something toward a concrete belief on the matter - you don't simply stay skeptical forever.
There is nothing particularly anti-theistic about this. Many theists approach religious truth claims similarly, and simply come out believing them to be true instead of untrue. An interesting tidbit that I personally enjoy from this explanation of the nature of a skeptic was the following statement:
Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true.
Someone should let the vast majority of self-proclaimed atheist skeptics in on this, especially Richard Dawkins, I don't think they've taken it into consideration. Indeed, if you approach something assuming your conclusion, you will be hard pressed to be convinced otherwise even in the face of compelling evidence. I've long held that this attitude is the antithesis to skepticism, and apparently the skeptics agree with me.
Here's one thing I think we can both agree skeptics are not, or at least, should not be:
Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo.
Not that I have comprehensive evidence, but I'll go ahead and attribute the prevalence of this belief to the unskeptical skeptics that seem to be everywhere, making a bad name for the true skeptics - the ones who immediately dismiss claims and evidence that challenge their previously held beliefs while claiming to champion reason and evidence. Strange, it's almost like there are people who don't truly understand what they claim to believe, making a bad name for beliefs of every kind. Some common ground for people of all beliefs and backgrounds, I suppose.
Moving forward, the skeptics had some more to say about skepticism:
Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism.
Even more stuff I agree with, maybe I'm actually a skeptic myself. Who knew.
Truly, the position of pure skepticism is, to be blunt, laughable. You cannot earnestly believe nothing but skepticism - there must be a foundational truth, or else you have no basis to believe anything, even that you can't believe anything. It's self defeating - if you believe that you can't believe anything, well, you've just believed something. Sorry!
So far, The Skeptics Society has done nothing but agree with me. However, a few things did come up that maybe they should have analyzed further...
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena.
While perhaps this is merely the brief and forward explanation and not the full scope of their position, it's not particularly agreeable. See, we do not only know things through the scientific method. Yes, I'm aware they did not say "we can only know things through the scientific method," but it fails dramatically to realize that there are many things we know to be true that can absolutely not be proven through the scientific method. The scientific method specifically involves things like the ability to reproduce a test, producing the same results over and over again to ensure that they are verified through testing, and having the thing to be tested exist in some sort of tangible way that allows us to actively experiment on it in real time.
The scientific method cannot be used to test the validity of things outside of natural, testable causes - specifically the (genuinely) supernatural and metaphysical. Some drastic "skeptics" and atheists will take this to mean that therefore these things do not exist. This is not how that works - absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is reasonable to be skeptical of these things for the lack of evidence, but declaring them to be entirely false due to not being scientifically testable is ignorant - you cannot know that through science alone. The Skeptics Society doesn't seem to have particularly made this claim (that I know of), but again, many self-proclaimed skeptics do.
Indeed, the scientific method cannot be used to test many other things - things that only happened once, for instance, i.e., history. There is a branch of science that investigates these claims, but it is called "historical science," and includes "forensic science," and it does not - because it cannot - utilize the scientific method.
If skeptics truly only utilize the scientific method for the purpose of understanding truth, then they will never be able to know historical truths - indeed not even historical truths that they themselves experienced. These experiences were not tested with the scientific method, so without accepting that there are other ways to know truth, they would have to conclude that these events have yet to be proven due to a lack of scientific evidence. It would be just as silly as having skepticism be your only position. Disbelieving all of history due to history not being able to be verified using the scientific method sounds a little silly, yes?
Most notably, science also cannot prove itself. Quite interestingly, science is a marvelous tool, but its validity cannot be tested by its own standards. This is not quite self-defeating unless you were to phrase it in a manner like, "science is the only way to truth." While The Skeptics Society has not done this (merely stated that science is the best way), I have seen self-proclaimed skeptics do it many times. Science surely is a manner of discovering truth, but to claim it to be the only way to truth is self-defeating, as it cannot prove itself. This brings to light the fact that we know science to be a way to truth due to other means of reasoning - mainly and most importantly, philosophy.
Science is a slave to philosophy. Without philosophy, we could not know whether or not science was a valid manner of understanding truth. We use philosophical principles when we establish the validity of science - particularly causality.
Causality is an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses, so basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. The concept is like those of agency and efficacy. For this reason, a leap of intuition may be needed to grasp it. Accordingly, causality is built into the conceptual structure of ordinary language.
What is being said here is that causality is understood to be true in so basic a form that it is not actually proven by anything. It simply is - we know it is because it is so clearly true. It is a law of the universe, part of reality, and understandable through simply living day to day. The scientific method would be hard pressed to provide proof of the law of causality when it, in fact, depends on the law of causality. Without the law of causality, we couldn't prove anything, as science is the study of causes and effects.
The basic laws of the universe, including logic, are not proven by the scientific method - but we know they are true. There are other ways of knowing things other than the scientific method, and to base whether or not you will believe something only on whether or not it is scientifically provable literally ignores this reality.
The Skeptics Society doesn't ignore causality:
Science is the best method humankind has devised for understanding causality. Therefore the scientific method is our most effective tool for understanding the causes of the effects we are confronted with in our personal lives as well as in nature.
Of course, they still fail to connect the dots between science depending on causality without being able to prove it. This statement confirms that causality is important - and real - but doesn't mention anything about how it cannot be known through science. While it's possible these, perhaps more "advanced," ideas are being skipped over for the sake of a simplistic and straight forward introduction for newcomers, given my own prior interactions with and understanding of the behaviors and attitudes of skeptics, I am somewhat... skeptical.
The Skeptics Society also noted:
A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement.
This claim is not quite as controversial as the previous one, but I still felt it required attention. See, the fault of this statement falls from the use of the word "factual." This statement attempts to say that claims become actual fact once an amount of evidence has been produced that make the claim appear reasonable enough that people tend to agree on it. This is simply not how that works. If something is shown to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not always definitively true for the same reasons that a lack of evidence or lack of enough compelling evidence doesn't make something definitively false. See, while we can know things, we cannot know everything, and we indeed cannot know the vast majority of things for certain. There could be evidence in the future that challenges what we think is true, or we could find that previous evidence was faulty or misled.
For example, it's entirely reasonable to believe that everything is affected by gravity. However, we have not witnessed all things falling and being subjected to gravity. We are therefore merely inferring through previously understood data that it is most likely that everything does indeed fall and everything is indeed subject to gravity. We, however, cannot know for an absolute fact, as we haven't tested literally all things falling, and we never can. While gravity is proven beyond a reasonable doubt and there is no evidence against gravity, we have not proven through the scientific method that all things are certainly and unarguably affected by gravity. Perhaps there is a thing that is not that we haven't discovered, or perhaps there will be a thing in the future that is not, but we cannot know this. It does, however, seem very unlikely. We therefore have concluded that gravity is likely beyond a reasonable doubt - perhaps 99.999...% likely, but not 100%.
Perhaps it is just my opinion, then, but we can only know that things are very likely to be true, not necessarily that they are true. Now, I'm not saying I don't believe in truth - to the contrary, I very much believe that there is absolute truth. But we are finite - rather small, insignificant, and truly unable to fully comprehend all that there is to comprehend in our vast and fascinating universe. Whether we know a truth doesn't change what the truth is - what I contest is merely our ability to know the truth without any doubt - absolutely zero doubt is hard to justify for a large number of truth claims - scientific truth claims overwhelmingly included.
And, of course, I found fault with the following statement...
Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid.
I would wonder when this manifesto was written - because surely it was after the overwhelming evidence for a beginning of the universe from Einstein's Theory of Relativity to the Big Bang and everything in between. Surely they are not unaware of the absolutely vast amount of evidence that points to a Creator and the mountains of evidence that lie contrary to Darwin's theory of evolution, as explored previously. I question if the skeptics are not violating their own standards: Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true.
As stated previously, we cannot know definitely that something is true or false. If new evidence comes up, we must be open to the possibility that it proves or disproves something that we held to be true or false previously. Creationists were skittish in the past toward the idea of using science to back up their beliefs, but as we have seen recently, there is no reason for theism to be afraid of science - it actually tends to point toward a Creator more often than not.
My biggest criticism of skeptics and perhaps-not-so-skeptics is their assumption of naturalism and materialism, ruling out the possibility of any other explanation. While The Skeptics Society appeared to not believe in doing this, they show themselves to in fact be guilty of the same. Quite disappointing.
When I read something, I leave myself open to the possibility that it may have evidence that is contrary to my beliefs. When I read a clickbait article title proclaiming that science has just "definitively disproven God," or "new evidence strikes devastating blow against God," I give it the chance to make its case. It's always been a case of assuming their conclusion or a misunderstanding of what kind of evidence would actually be needed to disprove God, but regardless, I understand and accept that if evidence were found that truly did falsify Christian doctrine or disprove God, I would have to accept the reality of the evidence.
It is irrational to believe anything other than the truth. What the truth is, however, is up for debate, due to the very nature of how we find out what the truth truly is. I've found that the evidence for God is overwhelming, that not only does science more often point to a Creator than to naturalism, but every other facet of philosophy, logic, history, and every other aspect of human existence does as well. I find it is more reasonable to believe in the truth claims of Christianity than materialism. If this was not the truth, it would not matter how reasonable it seemed - perhaps the truth is unreasonable, who knows. In the same regard, if Christianity is true, then materialism would not be - no matter how reasonable you believed it to be.
The Skeptics Society finishes their brief introduction with some excerpts from a book by Shermer, Michael, How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God. Here are a few parts with some of my own comments.
In fact, at least two of our more prominent supporters...are believers in God. Other members of our board may believe in God as well. I do not know. I have never asked.This quote shows that The Skeptics Society has theists, or least proponents of intelligent design (which is not traditional creationism). This is not surprising, as I've stated and from my own experience and feelings on the matter, there is nothing anti-theistic about true skepticism. Indeed, true skepticism has just as much a chance to lead one to God as it does to naturalism, depending on the biases, interpretations, and influences of the person investigating the claims. I question the contradictory statements within just this brief about page, especially in the face of understanding that religious people can also be 'skeptics'.
This is, of course, interesting. Theists, creationists, and apologists have been presenting their comprehensive and compelling evidence for a Creator for many years. It's so bizarre to me how people have either managed to avoid this evidence their entire lives - I was only able to avoid it for 26 years - or just decided to volitionally disregard it. They are either unaware of the evidence, unreasonably declaring the evidence insufficient due to their own personal commitments to materialism, or they lack an understanding in philosophy and logic.
The primary mission of the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine is the investigation of science and pseudoscience controversies, and the promotion of critical thinking. ... If someone says he believes in God and he can prove it through rational arguments or empirical evidence, then, like Harry Truman, we say “show me.”
If in the process of learning how to think scientifically and critically, someone comes to the conclusion that there is no God, so be it—but it is not our goal to convert believers into nonbelievers.”
While there is nothing particularly to debate here, it's of interesting note that while a short jaunt through science may lead one to atheism, an in-depth analysis is unlikely to leave one there without a good, heavy dose of denial.
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
― Werner Heisenberg
Our analysis of The Skeptics Society will end with their own definition of a skeptic. If the society of skeptics define what the modern movement of skepticism is supposed to be about, then it is reasonable that this is a reliable definition. This is what we will analyze further:
It is also important to remember that dictionaries do not give definitions; they give usages. ... But these usages leave out one important component: the goal of reason and rationality. The ultimate end to thinking is to understand cause-and-effect relationships in the world around us. The goal is to know the universe, the world, and ourselves. Since rationality is the most reliable means of thinking, a rational skeptic may be defined as:
One who questions the validity of particular claims of knowledge by employing or calling for statements of fact to prove or disprove claims, as a tool for understanding causality.
This definition is... disappointing. This self-definition unmistakably confirms the suspicious I had earlier: skeptics put too much emphasis on the scientific method as being the only way of knowing truth. More information is required to understand how I came to this conclusion, as they have made their own definitions for some of these words.
Science leads us toward rationalism: the basing of conclusions on the scientific method.
Science is the best method humankind has devised for understanding causality. Therefore the scientific method is our most effective tool for understanding the causes of the effects we are confronted with in our personal lives as well as in nature.
Here, they define "being rational" as basing conclusions on the scientific method - this is highly unsatisfactory, as philosophy and logic are truly the backbone of rationalism, while science is actually a product of rationalism. The act of basing conclusions on evidence as shown by the scientific method requires logic and reason, it is not possible to do so without it. Otherwise you merely have the results of scientific studies, without conclusions. Rationalism can and does exist independently from science, while science depends on rationalism. This explanation of "science leading to rationalism" is essentially entirely backwards. Rationalism leads to science - it wouldn't exist without it.
They also clearly state their opinion that science is the most effective tool for understanding cause and effect. This asserts that science has been developed as a method of understanding causality - but it is not. We understand causality separate from science, as well. Science depends on causality - without it, science is meaningless. We have to understand causality before we can utilize science - without understanding that causes have effects and effects have causes, the results of scientific studies will not make sense to us.
While The Skeptics Society started out strong, the conclusions and definitions they have come up with have proven disappointing. They place too much emphasis on the scientific method while ignoring that philosophy and logic are actually the real ways that we understand the world around us - and science is a product of these methods. Science is a marvelous tool, but it doesn't exist independently of philosophy and logic. I don't feel like their failure to mention these realities was done as a way to keep from confusing newcomers - it appears to truly be ignorance. The skeptics have failed to establish the very basis of logic and reason as their methods of truth, defaulting to the incomplete and unsatisfactory position of "science always and science only," which, I'll remind us, is self-defeating - science can't prove itself, let alone prove that it is the "best" way of finding truth.
Now that we're done with our analysis of The Skeptic Society, we have a few conclusions. While skeptics claim to approach claims in an unbiased manner, there are perhaps some theories they have dismissed outright and refuse to approach new evidence for with the same unbiased attitude. Skeptics laud the scientific method as the best way of finding truth, not so much as even acknowledging science's dependence on philosophy and logic to even exist. While anyone of any belief can be a skeptic, there is undeniably a culture around it that insinuates the majority of them believe that a skeptic approach using science and critical thinking will result in certain uniform beliefs.
Unfortunately, a lot of these conclusions coincide with my previous assumptions. I was hoping perhaps I'd find that the internet not-so-skeptics were operating under false assumptions and simply misunderstanding what it meant to be a skeptic - but if The Skeptic Society espouses these beliefs, then they are operating on the same level.
Skeptics truly believe that science is the one true way to truth - a sad, shallow, and misguided view of the world. The scientific method is a great tool and it helps us understand a lot, but championing it as, essentially, The Way, is a failure to draw reason and rationalism to their full conclusions. Basically, when you stop at "science" as the way to truth, you have stopped short - you need to go deeper. Science doesn't show truth, it never has - we've always utilized principles like causality and employed logic and reason in interpreting and understanding scientific results.
To truly be skeptic would be to approach new evidence for something you previously found to be false with the same unbiased attitudes as you would a completely new claim. If a self-proclaimed skeptic comes across evidence that is at odds with evolution, they shouldn't disregard it. They don't have to change their opinion overnight, but they shouldn't be at the same place they were previously. Sure, some evidence can be found to be misguided or conclusions can be inferred incorrectly, but simply proclaiming that all opposing evidence is in fact misguided is not being a skeptic. Adhering unwaveringly to your previous beliefs does not employ skepticism.
Self-proclaimed skeptics tend to fail to live up to their own standards of skepticism.
"One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs."
- Phillip E. Johnson
No comments:
Post a Comment