Are you a believer or a skeptic?

[Admin]

Ah ha! I bet most of you will have expected one of the usual questions on ghosts, alt. meds., paranormal powers etc.

What I want to point out however, is the fallaciousness of the thread’s title.

I’m sure we all agree that one of the most annoying things about being a skeptic is that people in general have the wrong idea of what a skeptic is: they tend to use it synonymously with ‘disbeliever’.

This has the effect that:
People who simply disbelieve in something (i.e. without justification) call themselves skeptics. For example, people stating something like, “I believe in Gordon Smith but I’m a ‘skeptic of’ Derek Acorah”.
People assume that skepticism is about non-belief of, or opposition to, ideas per se. i.e. skepticism is about disbelieving.A recent example of this was an enquiry I got from a BBC radio producer:

We're doing an hour on BBC Radio Leeds today between 1pm and 2pm about aliens! You may have seen it already but it's in the news today that scientists are claiming that we have the technology to pick up TV transmission from alien civilisations. We're going to be asking our listeners whether they believe that somewhere in the universer there are other life forms? I have a couple of guests who DO believe there is life out there, but I would really love to invite a skeptic on the programme at 1.45pm to put your own views across.
Notice how it is implicit in the enquiry that he had some people who did believe alien life might exist but he was looking for skeptics (i.e. automatic disbelievers) to oppose them.

Now the point I’m making is that we skeptics are prone to making the very same mistake and contributing to the 'skeptic=disbeliever' fallacy whenever we engage in “believer vs skeptic” type reasoning.

I think it’s something we need to be more aware of and it’s something to be avoided at all costs.

All I’m proposing is that we skeptics should be a little more thoughtful on how we refer to ourselves. If we’re using ‘skeptic’ in place of ‘disbeliever’ then we ought to think twice about doing so as it’s being used incorrectly; but more importantly, it’s sending out the wrong message.

Skeptic is not the opposite of believer (!)

There's not much to debate there but I hope you can see the point. O0

[Cuddles]

The trouble is, it depends what meaning you are using for "believer". In your argument you are using the scientific meaning of believing because of evidence, eg. I believe that the Earth goes round the Sun. Of course, in this case "believer" and "skeptic" are definately not opposites. However, in most "Believer vs. Skeptic" arguments, it is usually used to mean someone who believes through blind faith, despite all the evidence. In this case "believer" and "skeptic" most definately are opposites. It is a similar problem to use of the word "theory", where scientists use it to mean one thing, while woos, and often the general public, use it to mean something completely different.

[Admin]

What I’m really concentrating on is the use of the word skeptic in place of disbeliever. I don’t think it’s too important how believer (which is an equivocal term) is used in these contexts as skeptic in place of disbeliever is always wrong.

I did a (badly in need of re-writing) article on the problem of the term ‘belief’ here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/explanation.php?dir=articles/explanations&article=beliefs.php


However, in most "Believer vs. Skeptic" arguments, it is usually used to mean someone who believes through blind faith, despite all the evidence. In this case "believer" and "skeptic" most definately are opposites.

The skeptic and blind-faith believer will have formed their beliefs for opposite reasons (evidence-based vs faith-based), but that does not make skeptic opposite to believer. Although their methods of belief formation may be different, they may still reach the same conclusion, for example.

However, the point I’m trying to address is using the term skeptic in place of disbeliever.

I’ve seen it a few times recently, not only in general, but also used by skeptics. It’s such an easy mistake to make but it adds to the general misconception of what skeptics are.

“Believers vs Skeptics” type threads;
“Whether you’re a believer, skeptic or a fence-sitter….”;
etc.

The average reader probably isn’t aware that skeptics exist! So if they come across something like “are you a believer or a skeptic?” they will assume that skeptic means disbeliever (they won’t be examining the semantics etc.).

It’s just one small area where we could help ourselves by resisting the use of the fallacious believer/skeptic dichotomy. Every time it’s used it’s working against us.

[Jocky]

the point I’m trying to address is using the term skeptic in place of disbeliever

I always try not to use the word 'belief' (or any derivative thereof) in any discussion of critical thinking issues. For instance, I would avoid saying "I don't believe in homeopathy", preferring something like "All the evidence shows that homeopathy has no scientific basis and has no affect beyond placebo".

OK so it's more wordy, but I find that even a casual use of the B-word takes the focus away from objective evidence and onto subjective points of view. People instantly suppose that they are arguing not with a body of evidence but with a personal credo, and the old "my opinion is as good as anyone's" fallacy comes into play.

However, the language is against us here :( According to this thesaurus (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?r=20&q=skeptical), skeptical means "disbelieving", is the antonym of "believing", and is synonymous with negative terms like cynical, mistrustful, scoffing and suspicious. We need to stress the more appropriate and positive synonyms, such as doubtful, freethinking, incredulous, questioning and unconvinced.

It's not enough to say "I'm a skeptic" and then blame the other guy for not reading the your desired meaning into the word. We need to define our terms (I like to point out the Greek root word skeptesthai, meaning 'to examine', as in microSCOPE), challenge inappropriate use of terms, and make sure that we avoid terms which do more harm than good.

[Admin]

I too always avoid saying things like "I believe" or "I don't believe" simply because of the equivocal nature of the word.

I sometimes wonder whether dictionaries and thesauruses are written by good old God-fearing folk ;)

Anyway, this raises another issue: the difference between being A Skeptic and being sceptical.

Unless we can come up with a different label to Skeptic, we're always going to be faced with linguistic problems. :-\

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I've often thought that it would be handy if English had the verb unbelieve to go with disbelieve. This would resolve the ambiguity in " I don't believe x", which has to do duty for both :

" I lack the belief that x" and

" I believe that not-x".


Unfortunately, we haven't got the word. But we can still distinguish between unbelief and disbelief. :)

[Araneus]

That is why I always describe myself as a Rationalist rather than a Skeptic. It places the emphasis on reason, rather than disbelief.

[Jocky]

That is why I always describe myself as a Rationalist rather than a Skeptic. It places the emphasis on reason, rather than disbelief.

ISWYM, but in thesaurus terms (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/rationalist) it doesn't seem to help much. Disbelief is still the main definition, and apparently you could be interpreted as being a misanthrope, nihilist, pessimist or profaner ???

Who writes these things? It looks like a prejudice against accepting those who do not simply accept things on faith is deeply built into our linguistic heritage. Perhaps this is a measure of how far there is to go to achieve a rational society.

[edited to correct a sentence which as written meant the exact opposite of my intention :-[ ]

[Dr B]

I define myself as a scientist - not a skeptic. I am indeed skeptical of many claims, but to me at least, this is no more than an extention of my critical thinking.

However, TV thinks that these differences are far too subtle for the general TV audience. I disagree. I work with the public all the time and when they come up to me and say things like "oh well, you are a skeptic so you would say that wouldn't you" we tend to engage in a discussion like this John has fostered here.

They are often quite surprised to see that, in reality, I am more than happy to accept claims, conclusions and arguments if they "tick a few boxes" so to speak.

I do see self-claimed skeptics making the same mistakes as the woowoo from time to time - to be honest these people are really cynics or just ill informed.

Anyway - i agree with John it is something to consider and something we should fight against.

O0

[Admin]

That is why I always describe myself as a Rationalist rather than a Skeptic. It places the emphasis on reason, rather than disbelief.


Well that's the very thing I'm saying we need to watch out for - using Skeptic as a replacement for a disbeliever!

Skepticism does not place any emphasis whatsoever on belief or disbelief (!)

My point is that by using it as if it does we're only adding to our image problem.

The ideal solution would be to have a different label, but I've yet to see anything that would work any better than 'Skeptic'.

[Jocky]

My point is that by using it as if it does we're only adding to our image problem

And it's ot just us - woos do it too. I heard Dan Brown on the telly yesterday using 'skeptic' and 'believer' as if they were opposites, while in the process of peddling pseudohistory.

[Admin]

One of the worst cases I've seen of this was a C4 documentary about 'were the moon landings faked?'

They had the scientists explaining the apparent anomalies in the photos etc., but they referred to the conspiracy theorists who did not believe the moon landings happened, as skeptics!!

Bloody idiots.

[Jocky]

One of the worst cases I've seen of this was a C4 documentary about 'were the moon landings faked?'

They had the scientists explaining the apparent anomalies in the photos etc., but they referred to the conspiracy theorists who did not believe the moon landings happened, as skeptics

Thing is, when it comes to conspiracy theories the "Skeptical Movement" (for want of a better phrase) is not quite coming from the same side of the argument as we are in the case of (say) baby mind readers. We accept the evidence for the existence of the moon landings ("believe" in them, if you like), whereas conspiracy theorists critically examine and doubt the evidence ("are skeptical" of them).

We cannot claim copyright on the word - anybody who intends to convey that they have looked at evidence for a claim and have yet to accept it could reasonably describe themselves as skeptical. From their point of view, that would make us "credulous believers" ::)

Of course, we could point out that the quality of critical thinking they have applied to the evidence is wanting, but that doesn't make them "believers" or "woos" - it makes them inept skeptics.

[Admin]

To be 'a skeptic' and to be 'sceptical' are two quite different things but they do get confused.

I think you have a good point though Jocky - the conspiracy theorists are doing what skeptics say people should do - doubt and inquire; but, as you say, they are inept at evaluating the evidence.

They tend to begin with a conclusion and then pick holes in accepted evidence to support their conclusion though.


We cannot claim copyright on the word

No we can't.

I wish we could come up with a better one. :-\

[Dr B]

Maybe its not the name - but the perception. However, because the twisted perception has become sooooo ingrained in the publics consciousness - a change is perhaps needed...how about "fluffy bunny ideas sanctuary" ;D ;D

When I say "I am not a skeptic" what I really mean is I am not a cynic. Being a skeptic is not about rejecting ideas - but it can appear that way.

I would be delighted to accept that ghosts are real, get my science prizes and retire,.....alas I am still a jobbing individual like the rest of us, waiting for that elusive evidence.....

However, I want an Aston Martin DB9 if it does happen :D

[Jocky]

To be 'a skeptic' and to be 'sceptical' are two quite different things but they do get confused.

Do you mean "To be 'a Skeptic' and to be 'sceptical' are two quite different things"?

I know what you're saying of course - but I fear this distinction is opaque to the general public. We tend to use a capital letter and/or the American spelling to denote "we endorse a systematic approach based on critical thinking and the scientific method, and we recognise a degree of affinity with others who approach issues from a similar perspective"; and veteran campaigners on both sides of the "believer/skeptic divide" understand this shorthand well.

However, an intelligent and educated person who has not been exposed to the debate could be forgiven for thinking "Hang on, how can you claim that this noun/adjective pair mean different things :confused: " - and this is one big problem with the word as we use it.

As Dr B says, the other big problem is the perception that 'skeptic' = 'cynic', 'naysayer'. Unfortunately, I don't have the advantage of being able to say "I'm a scientist", 'cos that would be a lie :liar:

Oh well, I'll just have to call myself a "critical thinker" and get used to watching peoples' eye glaze over ...


They tend to begin with a conclusion and then pick holes in accepted evidence to support their conclusion though

Indeed. How to fail Critical Thinking 101 :D

[Admin]

Can you guess that this issue gets on my wick? >:( ;D

Anyway, apart from making sure we don't use the term 'Skeptic' in place of disbeliever, I've updated the what is skepticism? article on the main site.

So if anyone discovers someone not using Skeptic properly, call them something nasty then link them to this:

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php

;D

That's my attempt to give people a clearer idea of where we're coming from.

[Araneus]

I wish we could come up with a better one. :-\

Again, I believe "rationalist" fits this bill nicely.

1. It carries no connotations of either belief or disbelief amongst the non-expert/general populace.
2. It highlights the fact that reason is the underlying principle, not some pre-conceived worldview (often a charge levelled against skeptics by the ignorant) or automatic dismissal.
3. In general it harbours a positive emphasis -- even hardcore woos wouldn't want to describe themselves as "irrational".

[Cuddles]

As Dr B says, the other big problem is the perception that 'skeptic' = 'cynic', 'naysayer'.

Of course, one of the problems is that many, if not most, Skeptics are also rather cynical. It's hard for anyone who has spent time looking at various woo claims and outright frauds not to be. Unfortunately this means that people who come forward with the same claims we've seen before are unlikely to be taken seriously. The public therefore get a distorted view of us all being cynical unbelievers, rather than just critical thinkers who have seen it all before and (mostly) can't be bothered arguing the little details over and over agian.

[Admin]

Again, I believe "rationalist" fits this bill nicely.


The only problem with rationalism is that it places emphasis on thought and reason (nothing wrong there) but the philosophy states that that's all that's needed. The thing that I like about skepticism is that it places emphasis on empiricism.

In the article I linked to above I use the term 'rational skepticism' - this is the term I really like (although it has the disadvantage of being 2 words) as it places emphasis both on the use of logic and reason but it includes the essential (IMO) need to validate things empirically where possible.


3. In general it harbours a positive emphasis -- even hardcore woos wouldn't want to describe themselves as "irrational".

I think that's a very good point. IF we come up with some other name, choosing a virtue word (or hooray word) would be advantageous as the antonym would be undesirable.