skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism
n.
1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety.
2. Philosophy
a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.
For the purpose of this small piece I'm writing, we'll go with definition number 1, which is, having a questioning attitude towards information that one has received. At first glance, this may seem like a great way to go about in life, and actually it is, if done properly.. Having a questioning attitude towards anything one hears can be very healthy, since it allows you to keep your individuality and mental freedom. But we live in a world today, where this is rarely done, or done in a proper manner. We'll be discussing the latter one, and in a way, that one is way worse than not doing it at all..
In current days, there's information about everything everywhere. Not only information, but also misinformation and disinformation, and because of the last two, it's a good thing to be skeptical towards what one receives. The problem is, that people assume that certain sources are "always" telling the truth. The main ones of these are:
- Schools and universities
- Journals and papers
- Television (news reports and talk shows and the like)
And here's the part where skepticism fails. If you assume ANY source, to always be reliable, it is inevitable, that you will not only lose your individuality, but, you become easily manipulated into thinking what others want you to think. To clarify this further, let's get into our current day science (which has basically turned into non-science because it's more governed by politics than anything else...). To pick a more specific topic that most people are familiar with, let's pick the theory of evolution. Oh boy, is that a heated topic nowadays... And for what exactly..?
In any case, the theory of evolution has been propagandized a lot. And guess where.. Exactly.. Schools, journals and papers and on television. And there are a lot of people who blindly believe in it nowadays, even scientists.. But in here, we'll mainly talk about the public.
And what happens when you come with some alternative message to those kind of people? Well, you get ridiculed, or insulted, or they tell you to throw your bible away while you're not even religious, or you get some other out of proportion reaction. But, there's something that's even worse than this. Can you guess?
What's worse is, that they ask you for something.. They ask you, for scientific evidence.. And then you say for example, well, the information is available, go look it up. They'll usually reply with "you made the claim, so, you should give me the information, otherwise I might as well dismiss it", and they say that, because they're skeptical towards what you said. Or, you can also give them the information, and they will say something like "well that's not a reliable scientific source, so I might as well dismiss it", because again, they're skeptical towards anything that's not from the scientific community. And even if it is from the scientific community, they'll try to dismiss it as irrelevant. Let's say you found a scientific publication that says that our current dating methods can be wrong by a million years. They would say something like "yeah, but the data through evolution is consistent anyway so it does not disprove the theory".
And the reason why this is worse is because they failed to ask the initial source of information for evidence in the first place. They heard something so many times, that in the end, they accepted it as true, without any proper scientific evidence being presented to them in the first place. Usually, they are only told there is scientific evidence everywhere, but, it's never really shown to them. However, if you say the same thing about your own theory (there's evidence everywhere), they will say that they need proof. They didn't say that to the TV station for example.. And this kind of behavior is what I call selective skepticism. It's not "true" skepticism, because they accept one kind of information, which is what they already believe (usually by repetition), and dismiss the rest, while person himself has the same amount of evidence (or lack thereof) for both. Another word for selective skepticism is a well known word, bias.
Some may even tell you, that it's not needed to be skeptical towards certain things, but claims that are "extraordinary" need extraordinary evidence. And here is the part where I say that this just proves the selective skepticism. Something is extraordinary, when it falls out of your own beliefs and comfort zone, and your own beliefs are part of the information that you already received before and accepted as being true, and it's considered extraordinary when it contradicts those beliefs. When you are basing what you should be skeptical of, and what you should not be skeptical of, on what you find extraordinary, it's the exact same thing as being selectively skeptical, because you use your own beliefs as the point of reference, and beliefs can be true or false, and if they're false, you being skeptical towards anything that you think is extraordinary, will make you go against the facts.
To give a simple example. Imagine that since you were a kid, you've heard that the earth is flat from your parents. You grew up, went to school, they tell you there the earth is flat, you went to college and graduated, hearing there that the earth is flat, you worked for a few years, hearing everywhere around you the earth is flat, and one day, you suddenly read somewhere on the internet that the earth is round. What will your initial reaction be? What will your reaction be towards the ones claiming that? And even if they provide you with some logical explanation, would you be willing to accept it? Be fair to yourself here, and you'll see the point. Your wrong beliefs will only allow the wrong information in, supporting the "wrong facts" if there is such a thing.
Most people nowadays are afraid to let go of their old beliefs. This is true for science as well as religion, though the ones following science try to act like religion is the only one that does this.. A true skeptic does not simply dismiss information when a source is not provided. A true skeptic is willing to go look it up before dismissing it, allows the information in, but does not draw any conclusions with it. He/she allows the information to be evaluated through time, and as more information flows in, he/she allows previous assumptions to be dismissed or supported. That is the true way of a skeptic. When someone tells you they're skeptical, they're usually just telling you that they are not willing to believe something because it conflicts with their current beliefs. That is not skepticism, it's bias, or in some cases even worse, namely dogma. Usually when they say they're skeptical towards what you said, it's because they already have a "better" theory in their eyes, which again only transforms their skepticism into dogma.
Now, I'm not saying being a skeptic instead of a biased person is easy. It's not. How do you become aware of things that you take for granted? How do you become aware that you are assuming things to be self-evident? That is the hardest part.. You'll need to find what works for you on your own.. Because you're the one who knows what your past has been like, and you know your current life. Different beliefs require a different approach.
And before I finish, I just want to say that the evolution part was just to use as an example, and I'm not claiming it to be true or false. I might do some other post that might address that particular issue, but the point in here is, that you should beware when anyone says they're being skeptical simply because they're usually being biased.. "Anyone" includes yourself.. That is all for now.
I wish you a good day/night.
