Can't be skeptic all the time...

[Floppit]

I think of the above as a fact of life, simply due to the time restraints of mortality! I may have something wrong in my reasoning which is one reason to post, but if I haven't then I'm also interested in how other people decide what to investigate and what to accept.

So here goes. I choose to accept I don't know how Darren Brown did his 'trick', I'm quite comfortable with that and have no wish to chase round an explanation that I can actually support with evidence, or to brandish an assumption with any great force. I'm also comfortable to still 'bet' it's not paranormal and to say I don't think his reveal was 100% honest. I wouldn't postulate my position re Darren Brown as skeptical, largely because of my own laziness and contentment with best guesses. In other words I equate skepticism with effort and care. I have the same approach to theism - not convinced, content with 'betting' there's no god, not wrestling in any way with that, not 'fact' hunting re evolution, already seen enough to make my 'bet'.

I make choices about what to investigate further constantly and use mostly the same few criteria for what to spend the effort to be a little more skeptical in my approach towards. Here's some of the things which those decisions are made on:
*Having a degree of knowledge that gives me a head start, reducing the time needed to be skeptical and therefore making it more readily worthwhile.
*Seeing a real use for the knowledge in my own life - each person's situation is different and so are the opportunities to use what they learn.
*The amount I view the contested issue as having a 'civic' (probably wrong word) impact, is it rightfully a voting issue? Does it effect society as a whole to an extent that even a small impact from my personal beliefs make further investigation worthwhile?
* Am I interested 'just because', in other words will I enjoy the effort needed, find it pleasurable and life enhancing?

Does anyone think that it is possible to be skeptical all the time? If not what sort of things influence decisions about when to engage in the activity?

[Pebble]

I would suggest that skepticism requires that one does not accept explanations without investigation. Thus, accepting that one does not know is a perfectly skeptical position.
There is of course a limited amount of time in all our lives, and we all have different skills and resources available. So it would be nonsense to require that one investigates everything ones self - even if one did, that would not be evidence that is free from bias.
To accept something as 'proven' the same observations must be made by independent investigators, using methodology that caters as well as possible for bias. So long as the system for presenting and validating said data is robust it is sensible to simply explore the data ones self.
The problem is that one often must rely on others analysis of the original data, their conclusions on the validity of the data, and proposals of certainties that are not necessarily fully backed by the original data. This may also lead to the use of 'reliable sources' to support ones own biases.

So I would contend that one can be skeptical all the time, but have to accept that not knowing why something is the way it is does not preclude action, and that one must be aware that alot of what you think you have worked out is probably not fully justified. For me skepticism is just continuing to question in a sensible fashion.

[DrS]

I agree, Pebble. I think I don't know is a perfectly acceptable position, and one I probably adopt most of the time! Also, I too think that relying on others' analysis can be a problem, but one that can be reduced by at least some training in evidence analysis and source evaluation.

For me, this is the greatest failing in our education system, because we all have time limitations in our lives and thus have to rely on others to condense the information that's out there. There is a certain amount of this training in higher education, and it can often be carried over into areas of our lives other than those we're trained in. The problem is greatest, I think, for those who have not received anything other than basic education. We at least know we should be analytical.

[Floppit]

For me, this is the greatest failing in our education system, because we all have time limitations in our lives and thus have to rely on others to condense the information that's out there. There is a certain amount of this training in higher education, and it can often be carried over into areas of our lives other than those we're trained in. The problem is greatest, I think, for those who have not received anything other than basic education. We at least know we should be analytical.

I couldn't agree more - I remember posting something along those lines yonks ago but it got a bit drowned out by City and Guilds building (I think). If I had to choose between having gained a degree and having been introduced to journals, without hesitation I'd choose the latter, if asked I'd probably trade my big toes too!

I do wrestle with it a bit though because if I'm honest I believe evolution is factual rather than theoretical but haven't done half the work reasonable to call that decision well analysed. The pedantic part of my head rebels against the level of acceptance because I know I've cheated, it's only the consensus I've seen, even that rides on the back of the trust in those presenting it, the trust in them is because where I can have a better stab at critical evaluation they also seem to talk sense (like New Scientist mag). I suppose I can count seeing things in the world too, how remarkably like each other animals are under the skin.

I call myself an atheist because to describe myself as an agnostic isn't true - not because I've gone the extra mile between the 2 points critically, since I didn't 'believe' I didn't bother to do so.

[Graham Lappin]

I agree it is not possible to question every single thing as we go through life. I am at a hotel at present and there is a promotion whereby they give me a free tube of toothpaste that says "...removes 88% more plaque..." I am happy to use it (it's free) without demanding to see the clinical trials.

However, what went through my mind immediately was 88% more than what? More than doing nothing - which means it leaves 12% plaque behind. 88% more than the last formulation of this toothpaste, in which case previous buyers were cheated. I can't help it, these things instinctively race through my mind. It does not mean I necessary take it any further. (I think if I had someone trying to physically sell it to me, then I would ask these questions, if nothing more than for a bit of amusement).

Many people are also very compartmentalized when it comes to critical thinking. I was once selling my house and this couple came round who asked really tough questions, challenged anything I said and generally took a critical and skeptical view on everything. I had no problem with that at all and thought how well they were doing. They then said they had to go because she was late of an acupuncture appointment.

I don't think it is unusual for people to be very skeptical in some situations and then just the opposite in others. Those that call themselves skeptics, I think, perhaps just do it more often and perhaps with more panache, than many others.

[Mulder]

Psychic believers have the opposite problem. Sometimes I'm able to sneak the real explanation for an apparent psychic event past them. I guess it is difficult to have their psychic defences up all the time.