Degrees of Skepticism

[chaggle]

I have just seen the term "extremely skeptical" used and it looks wrong to me - a bit like "almost unique" or "nearly pregnant". Am I wrong?

[Pebble]

I have just seen the term "extremely skeptical" used and it looks wrong to me - a bit like "almost unique" or "nearly pregnant". Am I wrong?


Is skepticism an all or nothing phenomenon?

I had always assumed that there were degrees. Those who used their critical faculties to determine what to accept and what to reject being what I would call 'common' skepticism. Those who take the view that unless they have 'seen' the evidence for themselves it cannot be accepted as so, being close to the 'conspiracy theorist' end of the spectrum. Those who can make no decisions whatsoever, because nothing can be known absolutely I would put at the fruit bat end of the spectrum.

[DrS]

In the sense in which we use skepticism, of a process of enquiry, does "skeptical" have a meaning at all? Isn't this one of the problems with the word, that people understand "skeptical" to mean anything from withholding judgement to outright cynicism, and then apply those meanings to what we understand by skepticism?

[Croydon Bob]

I think that it is acceptable to say that one is "extremely sceptical" of a claim. I'm not so sure about "extremely skeptical" in UK English, if it was a Yank then that may also be OK.

I am extremely sceptical of your claim to have met extra terrestrials; I am slightly sceptical of your claim to have met Nelson Mandela in Croydon. Seem reasonable to me.

[Admin]

I have just seen the term "extremely skeptical" used and it looks wrong to me - a bit like "almost unique" or "nearly pregnant". Am I wrong?

I think it depends on how it's being used and by whom.

In general, being sceptical just means being doubtful so you can indeed be sceptical to varying degrees. Where it becomes a problem (for us anyway) is when people confuse being a skeptic with being sceptical.

Have you seen this: http://www.ukskeptics.com/content.php/74-On-using-the-term-skeptic

That was my take on this a couple of years ago. The only difference I would make to that article now is that I think it's a waste of time trying to improve our 'brand identity' and we'd be far better off going for something new.

'Skeptic' has far too many meanings and connotations (almost all extremely negative) and gets adopted by groups who are often the complete opposite of skeptics. Unfortunately, the press and media go along with these usages and so we're completely swamped when trying to do anything about it.

'Skeptic' as a label is a branding disaster!

[DrS]

Agreed.

[chaggle]

It is undoubtedly the different ways in which the word is which caused me to look twice at it.

It is of course entirely possible to be more or less sceptical (doubtful) about something as Croydon Bob says.

But skeptical? As DrS says it doesn't really have a meaning.

I saw it used like this - "I'm still extremely skeptical of all the evidence " - I would have been happier (I think) with the British spelling:undecided:

[Drop Bear]

I have just seen the term "extremely skeptical" used and it looks wrong to me - a bit like "almost unique" or "nearly pregnant". Am I wrong?

Have never thought of it like that.

My concept of skepticism is that it is a world view in which every issue always remains open to question. (including one's own strongest beliefs)

I have no problem accepting scientific theories such a say Newtons Laws Of Motion or Darwin's theory of evolution, which are explanations based on evidence, which help me make sense of the world. I'm wary of absolutes,believing that even well established explanations may be incomplete or even wrong. I accept them until I see new evidence

However,I agree with Hitchens who said "claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence". That is why I dismiss notions of gods,the soul,the paranormal,fairies, homeopathy,aliens and most of the paranoid drivel known as 'conspiracy theories' to mention a few.

[Admin]

The word skeptic/sceptic tends to get used to denote a position on matters. Sometimes a one of doubt but often it's non-belief, opposition, non-acceptance or even denial.

Here's a piece from Clive James last year 'in praise of scepticism': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8322513.stm

It's an atrocious argument (I know nothing about climate science but I don't believe in it) and it clearly isn't describing skepticism as we know it.

Yet this is the sort of popular understanding of what skepticism is. In fact, many skeptics (including some posting on the JREF) thought it was a good description of skepticism!

[Pebble]

The word skeptic/sceptic tends to get used to denote a position on matters. Sometimes a one of doubt but often it's non-belief, opposition, non-acceptance or even denial.

As I see his argument it is that received wisdom has been wrong more often than right in the past, so a position of extreme caution in respect of received wisdom is more likely right than wrong. I would have thought that this is close to the starting position of a skeptic. Pergaps the difference lies in the approach used. A skeptic is happy to accept valid scientific studies, even where these have to be interpreted by others as the field lies beyond their expertise, what then should one call those who can only be convinced when they can fully comprehend the technicalities behind each strand of evidence and assess the evidence base for themselves?

[Floppit]

I can't help but think the whole thing just works better describing a process rather than a person or group.

I could fib, but honestly I couldn't actually go through life as a true skeptic, I think I would annoy myself never mind anyone else! I enjoy having a crack at thinking clearly, I enjoy a clear tie between ideas and the real world, I'm no scientist but love the life of science - just as I'm no artist but could stare at a picture for an age.

I can understand the desire to keep it's standards to retain something undiluted but I struggle to imagine a group of any real size that could ever actually live up to that.

[chaggle]

I have just seen the term "extremely skeptical" used and it looks wrong to me - a bit like "almost unique" or "nearly pregnant". Am I wrong?

Or "Most Identical (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1288391/Sister-act-The-brunettes-named-Britains-identical-twins.html)"

Actually a very transparent excuse to post a picture of some pretty girls::)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/06/21/article-0-0A217BCF000005DC-210_634x513.jpg

[polomint38]

Or "Most Identical (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1288391/Sister-act-The-brunettes-named-Britains-identical-twins.html)"

Actually a very transparent excuse to post a picture of some pretty girls::)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/06/21/article-0-0A217BCF000005DC-210_634x513.jpg

Chaggle, how did you get a picture of my Wife and my lover. ::)

[Rose]

I confess that I'm quite confused about scepticism but I believe there can be degrees of scepticism. I wouldn't call myself a sceptic anymore than I would call myself an atheist. I'm not a religious person full stop - there's no reason for me to bring up atheism. And I simply believe or disbelieve - there's no reason for me to bring up scepticism. But all of the above could be wrong. I'm reading, listening and learning.