To John Jackson: I enjoyed reading “What is Skepticism”. My question is why was the word “doubt” used instead of “suspension of judgment” or “unbiased”? Since the average person does not have a large vocabulary, then the average person will interpret “doubt” as disbelief. Adding your forum comment……might it be productive to add or delete specific words so that the general public will better comprehend the skeptic stance? In each field of expertise we use specialized terms that are frequently misinterpreted by individuals who do not share a common background knowledge of the topic. If the target audience is the average public with an average education, then it seems logical that an average vocabulary is best for advancing skepticism to average people.Erm, we're working on it - that's not a cop-out btw, we're really looking at the best options on how to advance the skeptical outlook on life. It's not an easy problem to solve, but those of us at the core of UKS are actively looking into what we can do to advance the cause of skepticism/critical thinking. We're looking to identify our target audience for a start (!)
I'm sure that readers will not be confused by the term "doubt".
I tried to write that article without going into jargon, philosophy of science etc., so that it can be generally understood. It does get good feedback so I think it's pitched at the right level as an introductory article.
It's true that most people don't have a clue about what skepticism is; their idea is usually tainted by the common use of the word sceptic to mean disbeliever. There's not much we can do about that other than to provide articles like that one.
It's not the most popular article we have but it's being read 30-40 times every day on average and growing so hopefully it's having some impact.
.
Either that or someone has a really bad memory.Originally Posted by John Jackson
It's not the most popular article we have but it's being read 30-40 times every day on average and growing so hopefully it's having some impact.
Thank you for the reply John. A professional expertise of mine is building corporations, of restructuring lackluster businesses into companies that excel beyond their competitors. When I see an ideology like popular skepticism, I naturally wonder to myself why the ideology does not change its name, choose different wording, and apply the pre-established methodologies under a new title that the public might better accept. Inquisitiveness and non-biased judgments are useful tools regardless of which flag they fly under, and so my question was why they must fly under the flag of skepticism, an ideology that the majority of people may already have a preconceived dislike for? When a business has a bad reputation, we change the name and appearance, and the public then assumes little or nothing bad about the company. A new name along with a purging of disparaging comments about not-yet-skeptics might allow for skepticism’s ideals to flourish.
That is the answer I was looking for. So then the flag of skepticism is more important than inquisitiveness and suspension of judgment? I would think that it ought to be the other way around.
Skepticism is a method not an ideology (!)
And, I wouldn't say that skepticism is just about the suspension of judgement. Initial doubt is only one aspect of the process; the idea is to reach conclusions wherever possible.
I know what you're saying and we've been through it ourselves. I'd gladly change the name of UKS to something else if someone can come up with a better name. It's not as easy as you might think.
We're not active in any way at all so it doesn't really matter at the moment. Skeptics aren't much good at 'activism' and the few who do want to do things seem to want to go it alone rather than work as a coherent group. So I can't see anything changing - in the near future at least.
Anyway, if you have any ideas I'll be more than pleased to listen.
.
In addition to the points made above, Skepticism is about finding the conclusions that are most consistent with the highest quality reasons.
It is not about doubt per-se - as to doubt everything is to make no contribution at all. It is about applying a degree of constructional doubt with the aim to adopt the ideas / conclusions most likely to be correct at any one time.
It is a method - not a theory. It does not dictate the contents of an idea - it only provides you with a method to inform it.
That is one example of why skepticism is not well accepted by the general public. You and I could talk at length about the various forms of philosophical skepticism, from classical to Cartesian to neo-skepticism (the new modern variety), and we could laugh at the babble of Plato through James, but the general public does not know the difference between method and ideology, and worse, the public does not care to know.
When I and countless others look at neo-skepticism, we see organizations, memberships, followers, believers, forums, talk shows, and all the other trappings of an ideology.
A person cannot become a member of a method, but he can become a member of an ideology. It may be true, in a sense, that philosophical-skepticism-the-opinion can be construed as a method, but it is not true that the vast quantity of followers in the many social groups perform the methods of skepticism (whatever the methods might be, which I myself have not yet seen a clarified list). To the general public, skepticism is just one ism within the hundreds of other isms that claim to possess the highest truth.http://www.skeptics.ca/membership.html
Membership in Skeptics Canada/OSSCI is inexpensive but provides many benefits.
http://www.rationalmagic.com/RMS/rms-member.html
Benefits of Membership:
http://www.aske-skeptics.org.uk/membership.htm
Help fight pseudoscience and promote skepticism
We need your help! ASKE is still a comparatively small organization and is always on the lookout for new members.
http://www.ukskeptics.com/about_us.php
UK-Skeptics is a UK registered not-for-profit organization (No: 05819701) which is administered by director John Jackson and a board of non-executive directors.
I previously pondered a similar line of thought, but I too did not find an acceptable flag. Regardless of what term is used, the applying of a term will in so doing create an ideology. I personally have a fondness for philologike, but it creates no less of a sophic air than any other. The preferred title would reside within the use of a name that does not unduly insinuate an ideological meaning of its own, i.e. “The Forum.” Doers do not need a flag.
That appears to be rather common, that doers do it alone, often because there are too few other doers. Neo-skepticism is not unique, the lack of doers is prevalent throughout mankind at all levels.
The greatest hurdle faced by corporate management is to recognize and accept that the old methods did not or are not working. My current project is to build a company’s presence in a region where the company has failed for approximately seven years. The small company has lost well over one million dollars of net revenue, which is not too bad relative to a previous corporation that in one department alone had wasted several million due to incompetence. For over two months I have sat on my hands while waiting for management’s old habits to break. I already have new accounts waiting for the company’s business, but until the company’s methodologies change for the better, it would further harm the company’s reputation to open new accounts that it cannot service. It usually takes about six months and a high-stress situation before management resigns itself to allow me the latitude to restructure the corporation’s standards of practice. After passing the event horizon, it usually only takes a few weeks to begin seeing marked success.
As with the corporations, neo-skepticism must first recognize itself for what it is; not what it imagines itself to be. After the self-recognition occurs, the next steps will (should) appear obvious. It is easy to be a skeptic of the classical variety that can find flaws in all knowledge, but it would serve none of us to drag the dirt out of neo-skepticism’s closet for the world to see. What is profitable, however, is that the good be given honor, and from the honor might more good be created.
Thank you for the additional input Dr B. Agreed, classical skepticism, of the western variety that states nothing can be known, was/is of little creative value.
I saw an excellent post of yours on a different thread:
It has proven difficult to convey to the public the realization that the inward process of a thing cannot be known through the external observation of its product. While the realization is valid and flows parallel to classical western skepticism’s stance that nothing can be known, there arises a conflict of logic when combining your comment with neo-skepticism’s stance that conditional truth can be known. By what logic can we claim to understand the product of a chemical reaction if we cannot yet understand the underlying processes? How do you rationalize the conflicts?Remember, what it feels like does not reveal what the mechanism is.....you cannot understand the underlying processes merely from the resultant product...think about it
Also, another question if I may; a user asked if you are the author of Seven Fallacies of Thought and Reason, but I did not see a direct reply. Are you the author?
Re: John Jackson's "What is Skepticism"
Compared to non-skeptical philosophical positions, skepticism is very simple. It is easy to understand, although it is commonly confused with things it is not. Skepticism in religion, for example, is not atheism. It is not even agnosticism.
No genuine skeptic ever doubts or denies or disbelieves any theory, any hypothesis, or any belief.
<Quote:Originally Posted by John Jackson
I know what you're saying and we've been through it ourselves. I'd gladly change the name of UKS to something else if someone can come up with a better name. It's not as easy as you might think. Unquote>
Penny thinks:
A Skeptic is also known as an "inquirer", because the essence of a skeptic's position is not doubt, denial or disbelief, but continuous inquiry. Therefore, if you want to change the name of UKS, You could possibly rename it (1) "The People's Inquirer" (2) "UK Inquirer" (3) "Skeptics Inquirer" (4) "The Inquirer's Essence" ... That was fun!
Last edited by InForAPennyInForApound; 3rd December 2007 at 08:08 AM.
InForAPenny, you forgot to reference your quote
Peter Suber
Re: John Jackson's "What is Skepticism"
Thanks MishiefMonkey, I realised my mistake and came back to correct! Was too late, therefore its printed at the bottom of the posting!
I'd put it a bit differently:No genuine skeptic ever doubts or denies or disbelieves any theory, any hypothesis, or any belief.
No genuine skeptic ever denies a hypothesis, unless it has clearly been confounded by a lack of good quality evidence. Of course, a genuine skeptic would be prepared to reconsider such denial, if the balance of available evidence were to change in future.
No genuine skeptic ever disbelieves a hypothesis as an act of faith, because it is evidence, not belief, which matters.
But genuine skeptics can, do and IMO should doubt hypotheses, until they have been confirmed by evidence.
[OT] Hey, I made a post - first one in ages! I miss being active in this forum - will try to get back to you guys sometime real soon[/OT]
How about calling skepticism "knowledge quality assurance"? Motto: making sure it does what it says on the tin?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks