The Millenium Project

Home > Comments and Articles > Introduction to skepticism
Bookmark and Share

Alphabetical ListCategoriesCommentariesArchiveAbout the SiteHate MailBook ShopSite Map/Search

Introduction to skepticism

A good place to start this blog conversation would be to identify what it means to be called a "skeptic". Perhaps the best way to start would be to say what a skeptic is not.

The first thing that many people assume is that scepticism is synonymous with cynicism Ė that skeptics donít believe anything unless it can be absolutely proved to be true, and are therefore close-minded to new ideas until irrefutable evidence has been produced. Many will be aware of Rene Descartes idea that the only thing we can be absolutely sure of is our own existence, but it would be hard to live your life that way. Skeptics are just people who like their facts to be correct.

As an aside, everyone must be familiar with the quote "It ain't so much the things we know that get us into trouble. It's the things we know that just ain't so". I once used it in something I was writing and being a pedant I went looking for the original author of the saying. Something in my mind said that it was Ralph Waldo Emerson, but something else said that it didnít really sound like Emerson. I knew it was an American, but it didnít sound like Walt Whitman, Edgar Allen Poe or T. S. Elliot either, so I checked. I found many attributions, and what all these attributions had in common was that the writer was absolutely sure that it had been said by Mark Twain. Or Josh Billings. Or Artemus Ward. Or Will Rogers. Or Ö .

Here was possibly the most famous saying in the world warning about being both sure and incorrect and the evidence was clear that at least some people talking about it were both sure and incorrect.

The other major thing that skeptics are often accused of is atheism, but what is really meant is antitheism. As scepticism asks for evidence it is quite consistent to doubt the existence of gods unless evidence of their existence can be shown. Unfortunately the meanings of the words have changed over time so that the correct skeptical position, agnosticism (from the Greek for "without knowledge", or colloquially "donít know"), now seems to indicate a sort of acceptance that there might be a god somewhere so we had better behave ourselves. The word "atheist" (from the Latin meaning "without a god") now seems to mean someone who denies the existence of gods. As existence of a god is a matter of faith, not evidence, claiming the ability to absolutely prove the non-existence of all gods steps outside scepticism. I prefer to be called an apatheist, in that I donít know, donít care and I wouldnít live my life any other way if I did know.

Skeptics object to the excesses of religion, as do many believers, but the real objection is when testable claims are made, such as that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. We treat these claims the same way we do those which challenge the orthodoxy of science and medicine. If someone makes a claim they should be able to back it up, and saying that someone said it or wrote it or it might be true just arenít good enough.

Scepticism is the forefather of science in that it is a method of arriving at the truth, not the truth itself. It is a philosophical position that allows the perceived truth to be provisional and to be rejected or modified as more evidence and facts become available. Yes, there are some ideas in science which have so much supporting evidence that it would seem either foolish or extremely optimistic to think that they might be overthrown any time now, but that doesnít stop creationists and perpetual motion machine inventors from trying. Far from being close-minded, skeptics have minds that are open to the possibility of being wrong, but we must always remember Carl Saganís warning that our minds shouldnít be so open that our brains fall out.

Oh, and hereís a note for those who want to complain that the spelling "skeptic" is an intrusion of Americanisation into our lives. It is an Americanisation of an Anglicisation of a Latinisation of the original Greek. You can spell it "skeptik" if you want to be pedantic.

To sum up the skepticsí state of mind I could quote Joe Friday and say "Just the facts", but then I could be accused of being old and curmudgeonly, a charge often brought against skeptics but a matter for another blog entry on another day.

A version of this article was published on the Yahoo! 7 News Blog on August 24, 2009
Yahoo! 7 News


Readers' Comments

blueprairie

Is there a difference between a skeptic and a contrarian? I'm afraid I'm the latter (I rather like the name "apatheist" though).

Sep 14 09:42 am
Look who's here! peterwallace3370

Perhaps this entry might be re-titled "An Introduction to Lying"....
Mr. Bowditch, you are not a sceptic...you are a liar....
You have even been found out in court as a liar!
When a court found Bowditch having lied about ACN, he was ordered to remove the lies!
Bowditch contends he's only interested in the facts?
Bowditch wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the arse....

Sep 21 01:35 am
Look who's here! peterwallace3370

Oh Hello Mr. Bowditch....don't keep me waiting...I'm ready for your instant wit and sceptical retort!!!
Do the good people 7News know they have such a witless and arrogant wanker such as you retorting and reporting such filth, vile and rubbish?

Oct 6 12:42 pm
ratbaggery

@peterwallace3270 (or should I call you Mr O'Neill? - you certainly write like him.)

So good of you to drop by. You do have some evidence that a court ordered me to remove something from my web site, don't you? If you don't then perhaps people might think that you are a bit loose with the truth.

Why don't you tell Yahoo! about me? Remember to use your real name, and your address would be handy for the delivery of the writs.

Oct 17 03:51 pm
Look who's here! wigginsf35

Don' t know if have everything right but here goes:

Bowditch appears all over the internet. He's reported to have spent time in prison, has lost numerous civil actions for defamation, and publishes some pretty controversial statements about women and children. Whoever peterwallace3270 might be, he seems to have an accurate view of this character.
My question is why would 7News engage the services of such a disreputable and dangerous person.

Nov 7 02:27 am
michael.slezak

Hi Peter. Nice blog. I've only just found it but I'll be sure to read it regularly.

I just have one comment about atheism vs agnosticism vs "apatheist". Atheism is the correct view for a skeptic. Skeptics are certainly not agnostic or "apatheist" about ghosts, about the powers of chiropractic or the healing powers of crystals and nor should they be about the existence of gods. The fact that there exists no evidence is enough to disbelieve.

Jan 11 02:35 pm
jceb37

Kevin Rudd would I think be termed a skeptic! Raise the drinking age to 21 but legally an 18yr old is an adult! What an oxymoronic matter. How does he make an 18yr old an adult in all things but a juvenile in alcoholic matters? It does not compute. Well not to me it doesn't.

Feb 9 12:32 pm

All donations gratefully accepted
Please help out with a donation.

Back to The Millenium Project
Email the
Copyright © 1999-
Creative Commons