Skeptics usually get classed as disbelievers. That may seem a fair criticism, as anyone would be hard pushed to find a skeptic who believes that a chair could be levitated by mind power, that psychics can predict the future, that homeopathy works by anything other than placebo effects, or that spiritualist mediums are really passing on messages from the dead.
This can lead to believers in these phenomena, and those who may be termed "fence-sitters" on such issues, thinking of skeptics as close-minded disbelievers: people whose minds are closed to the possibility that these things could be true.
Is this fair; are skeptics close-minded disbelievers?
No, that's not a fair or accurate description. To understand why, we need to realise that there is more than one way that knowledge can be classified:
This is often described as "before experience" propositional knowledge. This is assumed knowledge that may have come from reasoning, an opinion, intuition, or something that a person may simply have accepted as true.
The defining feature is that it is propositional knowledge, a belief, or
an opinion that is formed, without the person having prior experience of
the subject.
This is described as “after the fact” propositional knowledge. This is empirical knowledge that is gained through experience and which requires evidence for validation or support. The best example of a posteriori knowledge is scientific knowledge. The defining feature is that it is propositional knowledge, or an opinion that is formed, that is based on empirical evidence.
When people criticise skeptics for disbelieving, what they tend to imply is
that skeptics adopt an a priori position on things, i.e. that they
decide not to believe in things in advance of experiencing or examining them.
Of course the truth is that skeptics adopt the exact opposite approach to things. Whenever a claim is made, skeptics do not accept it or reject it; they doubt it and test it.
After testing a claim that is found to be false or lacking in supporting evidence, that is the time that skeptics will disbelieve the claim. In fact, it is no longer disbelief: it's knowledge – a posteriori knowledge.
Example:
James Randi (see: Randi.org) has tested hundreds of people who claim the ability to dowse for various items. Out of those hundreds of dowsers, not a single one of them could demonstrate their claimed ability under properly controlled observing conditions.
Skeptics do not accept that dowsing works. This is not due to close-minded disbelief, it's because of a posteriori knowledge on the subject.
It should be noted that most claims for alternative therapies, ESP, PK, weeping statues, mediumship, etc., have been around for a long time, and have been thoroughly tested and found wanting.
It should be obvious why skeptics do not accept the claims for such things. The real question that should be asked is not, “why do people disbelieve these things?” but “why do people continue to believe them?”
