John Jackson © UK-Skeptics

The first reason this occurs is through the fallacy of equivocation (confusing the different meanings of the same word).

1) Equivocation

In general usage, skeptic(al) simply means to be doubtful; whereas skepticism (or to be a skeptic) means adopting a critical approach to claims based on doubt, suspension of judgement, inquiry, and forming provisional conclusions based upon evidence (see: What is Skepticism?). The common usage of ‘skeptical’ can lead people to assume that skepticism (the method of inquiry) is simply about doubting things or disbelieving them. This confusion between the two meanings of the word often leads people to think that skeptics simply “don’t believe things”.

This is often seen in general discourse such as on internet forums. It is commonly seen in discussions about ghosts etc. whereby those who say they don’t believe in ghosts are termed the ‘skeptics’; and questions such as “are you a believer or a skeptic?” add to this idea of skepticism equating to mere disbelief.

This confusion leads to people thinking of the idea of being a skeptic as something negative: people who don’t believe things; people who won’t accept things; people who are closed minded. Of course, that is not what skepticism is about at all. It’s about believing things and accepting things as long as they have good evidence to support them; and being open minded enough to reject ideas that are not supported by good evidence. This is a very positive attitude to have as it’s a good way of discerning what’s real from what’s bogus.

Many people do realise the positive nature of skepticism, however, and wish to be thought of as skeptics. Unfortunately, they tend to believe in things that do not have good evidence to support them and so to use the term ‘skeptic’, they redefine what it means and hijack it to suit themselves. This leads to the second example of confusion over the word ‘skeptic’.

2) Conceptual Hijacking and redefinition of the term

Believers in things like alternative medicine, but particularly the paranormal, often like to call themselves skeptics. Their basic technique is to label themselves as True Skeptics and to label skeptics as Pseudoskeptics.

What they are basing their thinking on goes back to early skepticism – namely, pyrrhonism. The idea was that we cannot know anything absolutely (with 100% certainty) which also means we cannot say that something is false with certainty either. This allows them to take the stance that despite over 100 years’ of systematic testing of psychic abilities, for example, and there’s no high quality evidence to support them, that such claimed abilities simply remain unproven (not disproved). This gives them the justification for the belief in psychic powers despite the lack of good evidence.

This out-of-date stance is based on the ‘problem of induction’ which was solved by Karl Popper with his idea of scientific conclusions being falsifiable.

What we can now say, with perfectly sound reasoning, is that if something has been tested (e.g. for over 100 years) and no proof of it has come to light then we can say it doesn’t exist (the scientific statement) with the proviso that we will change our stance should supporting evidence come to light (the falsifiability criterion). That is the stance taken by modern skepticism.

So, if a skeptic says, “psychic abilities don’t exist,” it is a perfectly valid scientific statement as it is supported by the (lack of) evidence and it is capable of being proved false. It is not a statement based on prior disbelief or denial; it is a neat statement of fact based upon the evidence – which has been being gathered since Victorian times!

A perfect example of this is here: skeptical investigations.

The third way in which the word skeptic gets used is with denialist groups or groups who oppose or disbelieve in something.

3) Denialism

The pattern seems to be to use the name of whatever it is you oppose or deny and stick the word ‘skeptics’ on the end. So we have groups like:

• Euroskeptics;
• Global Warming Skeptics;
• Cholesterol Skeptics;
• 9/11 Skeptics;
• Vaccine Skeptics;
• Etc.

Or to use the phrase “skeptics of” followed by whatever they deny. Such as:

• Skeptics of Global Warming;
• Skeptics of Evolution;
• Etc.

The irony being with such groups is that they are the complete opposite of skeptics: they hold preconceived conclusions on issues and really do argue before the evidence is in or despite the evidence; and do so dogmatically.

This use of the word is similar to how it is used in place of ‘disbeliever’; however, its usage is much more severe as the meaning conveyed is diametrically opposed to what skepticism actually is. This usage is probably the most damaging one to skepticism and, unfortunately, it is popular with the media. It’s a quick and easy way to label opposition and denialist groups.

What can we do about this?

The usage of the word skeptic in so many different ways and contexts certainly does not help the image of skeptics or skepticism as we’re perceived as being examples of these common usages. We can’t stop people using the word as they please because, as if often pointed out, no one owns the word skeptic.

We could, however, actively promote the use of the term skeptic and of ourselves as skeptics by promoting what we are about and why these other usages are really not accurate.

Some people prefer not to use the name skeptic at all and so avoid the issue. However, what is being achieved by this approach? It simply adds to our identity being swamped by the misperceptions.

We could go for a new name which would avoid the negative connotations associated with skeptic; but then we’d have to build the identity from scratch, and as ‘The Brights’ found out, that’s not as easy as it may seem. In addition, despite years of consideration about this issue, no one has ever come up with a better word than ‘Skeptic’ as a descriptive label.

Skepticism is a very smart and intelligent approach to claims of all kinds. The method is both powerful and positive in attaining answers to questions that are much more likely to be right than wrong. There really shouldn’t be a problem with skeptics promoting skepticism!

Rather than worry about the other uses of the word skeptic, we should (at least attempt to) make our usage of the word become a fourth mainstream alternative, and popularise our usage of it.

http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/17/skeptic-the-name-thing-again/