what’s all this about skepticism?

In Education, Philosophy on Sunday, 10 February 2013 at 08:37

What is Skepticism, Anyway?

By: Michael Shermer, Ph.D.

 I often hear, “Oh, you’re a skeptic, so you don’t believe anything?” No, I believe lots of things, as long as there is reason and evidence to believe.– Michael Shermer

As the publisher of Skeptic magazine I am often asked what I mean by skepticism, and if I’m skeptical of everything or if I actually believe anything. Skepticism is not a position that you stake out ahead of time and stick to no matter what.

Consider global warming: Are you a global warming skeptic? Or are you skeptical of the global warming skeptics? In this case, I used to be a global warming skeptic, but now I’m skeptical of the global warming skeptics, which makes me a global warming believer based on the facts as I understand them at the moment. The “at the moment” part is what makes conclusions in science and skepticism provisional.

Thus, science and skepticism are synonymous, and in both cases it’s okay to change your mind if the evidence changes. It all comes down to this question: What are the facts in support or against a particular claim?

There is also a popular notion that skeptics are closed-minded. Some even call us cynics. In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. We are curious but cautious.

Or, I often hear, “Oh, you’re a skeptic, so you don’t believe anything?” No, I believe lots of things, as long as there is reason and evidence to believe. For example:

• I believe in the germ theory of disease.

• I believe that vaccines are good for societal health.

• I believe that fluoridated water reduces cavities.

• I believe in the Big Bang theory of the universe.

• I believe that the theory of evolution best explains life.

• I believe that the theory of plate tectonics best explains the the continents.

• I believe that the periodic table of elements best explains chemistry.

• I believe that JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald.

• I believe aliens are probably out there somewhere but that they have not visited Earth.

Being a skeptic just means being rational and empirical: thinking and seeing before believing. The Oxford English Dictionary gives this historical usage of the word Skeptic:

“One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry; one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement.” And: “A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite convictions.


Skepticism is not “seek and ye shall find,” but “seek and keep an open mind.” But what does it mean to have an open mind? It is to find the essential balance between orthodoxy and heresy, between a total commitment to the status quo and the blind pursuit of new ideas, between being open-minded enough to accept radical new ideas and so open-minded that your brains fall out. Skepticism is about finding that balance. Here is a definition of skepticism:

Skepticism is the rigorous application of science and reason to test the validity of any and all claims.

Skeptics question the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it. In other words, skeptics are from Missouri — the “Show Me” state. When we skeptics hear a fantastic claim, we say, “That’s interesting, show me the evidence for it.”

You say you believe in Big Foot? I say, “That’s interesting, show me a body of a Big Foot creature and I’ll believe.”

You say you believe that aliens have landed on Earth? I say, “That’s fascinating, show me an alien body or a crashed spacecraft and I’ll believe.”

It is not always easy to evaluate claims, and so we skeptics have developed what the astronomer Carl Sagan called “the fine art of baloney detection.” Inspired by Sagan, at Skeptic magazine we produced what we call the Baloney Detection Kit, which consists of a list of questions to ask when encountering any claim. Here are a few:

• Does the source of a claim often make similar claims? Pseudoscientists have a habit of going well beyond the facts, so when individuals make numerous extraordinary claims they may be more than just iconoclasts.

• Have the claims been verified by another source? Typically pseudoscientists will make statements that are unverified, or verified by a source within their own belief circle. We must ask who is checking the claims, and even who is checking the checkers? The biggest problem with the cold fusion debacle, for example, was not that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman were wrong; it was that they announced their spectacular discovery before it was verified by other laboratories (at a press conference no less), and, worse, when cold fusion was not replicated they continued to cling to their claim.

• Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only confirmatory evidence been sought? This is the confirmation bias, or the tendency to seek confirming evidence and reject or ignore disconfirming evidence. It is why the methods of science that emphasize checking and rechecking, verification and replication, and especially attempts to falsify a claim, are so critical.

• Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena, or is it strictly a process of denying the existing explanation? This is a classic debate strategy — criticize your opponent and never affirm what you believe in order to avoid criticism. But this stratagem is unacceptable in science. Big Bang skeptics, for example, ignore the convergence of evidence of this cosmological model, focus on the few flaws in the accepted model, and have yet to offer a viable cosmological alternative that carriers a preponderance of evidence in favor of it.

• Do the claimants’ personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa? All scientists hold social, political, and ideological beliefs that could potentially slant their interpretations of the data, but how do those biases and beliefs affect their research? At some point, usually during the peer-review system, such biases and beliefs are rooted out, or the paper or book is rejected for publication. This is why one should not work in an intellectual vacuum. If you don’t catch the biases in your research, someone else will.

Also in the Skeptics’ Toolkit is an aphorism often attributed to Carl Sagan, but was actually said by others before and in several different wordings, but regardless of its etymology this is a line you should keep in mind whenever someone regales you with an extraordinary claim:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

That is, the more fantastical the claim, the more skeptical you should be unless the evidence is equally fantastic.

Ideas are not set in stone. When exposed to thoughtful people, they morph and adapt into their most potent form. TEDWeekends will highlight some of today’s most intriguing ideas and allow them to develop in real time through your voice! Tweet #TEDWeekends to share your perspective or email tedweekends@huffingtonpost.com to learn about future weekend’s ideas to contribute as a writer.

Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/what-is-skepticism-anyway_b_2581917.html?ir=TED+Weekends&ref=topbar

  1. “….Skepticism is the rigorous application of science and reason to test the validity of any and all claims….”

    That’s not how the dictionary defines ‘Skepticism’. Shermer appears to be just talking about the scientific method and critical thinking/ logic. He should really say “Good science and reason is the rigorous application of science and reason”.

    Why does he have to label these processes ‘skepticism’? Is it because his magazine happens to be called ‘Skeptic Magazine”? Is it because he wants to define ‘Skepticism’ (or himself) as being more ‘noble’ or ‘special’ than it (or he) actually is?

    Having defined ‘scepticism’ in terms of science and reason (as opposed to claims and beliefs) he goes on to talk about his various ‘beliefs’….

    “….I believe in the germ theory of disease……I believe that vaccines are good for societal health……I believe that fluoridated water reduces cavities…….etc etc…”

    Belief is not science! I might believe my neighbour’s oak tree is 47ft tall, but that is not science. Only if I’ve measured my neighbour’s oak tree using trusted measuring devices and the data tells me it is 47ft tall does it become science. Now I no longer have to ‘believe’ anything about the height of the oak tree, I have DETERMINED its height… I KNOW its height…. I can PROVE its height.

    Shermer goes on to say,

    “…Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence…”

    Strictly speaking, a ‘claim’ does NOT require evidence. That is precisely why it’s called a ‘claim’ and not a ‘verifiable fact’. Again, any dictionary will confirm this.

    I’ve seen a few of Mr Shermer’s TED talks and they all seem to follow the same infantile format. First, he makes some wisecracks to endear himself to the audience and also to create a consensus based on superiority (“Look at these stupid people and their silly beliefs, we can see how silly they are which means WE must all be better than them”). Then he talks about perception, pattern recognition and survival instincts (drawing some fraudulent conclusions along the way).

    And then he starts acting like a total prat saying things like “9/11 couldn’t have been an inside job, because the Bush administration were too incompetent to pull off such a sophisticated event”. Whether or not the Bush administration was involved, that statement hardly qualifies as the application of science or reason. I guess it does qualify as skepticism though…

    He seems to be either acting as a propaganda vehicle for the state and military industrial complex or he’s just making a living off their propaganda (or both). He ridicules ‘conspiracy theorists’ (without applying any science or reason) and fails to point out that a great many (so called) ‘conspiracy theorists’ are people who are simply questioning and challenging the validity of official government/ media conspiracy theories.

    For example the government and media have made various claims about WMD’s in Iraq and Osama Bin Laden being responsible for 9/11. None of these claims have ever been elevated to the level of *verifiable fact* using evidence, science, reason, logic and so on. They remain (by definition) mere claims or, to use another popular term, ‘conspiracy theories’.

    The FBI never officially linked OBL to 9/11 and Rex Tomb even admitted when questioned about this that they “…simply do not have enough evidence to link him to 9/11”. In fact OBL was never indicted, charged, brought to trial or convicted in a court of law for the crimes of 9/11. (However it CAN be proven – and it has never been denied – that the Bin Laden family have had strong links with the Bush family for decades. OBL’s brother even helped GW Bush set up his first oil company Arbusto. The entire Bin Laden family were flown OUT of the US immediately after 9/11, rather than detained and questioned about their relative who was now the government/ media’s “most wanted man”).

    And as we all know, no evidence of Saddam Hussein’s alleged WMD’s was ever found.

    A genuine ‘skeptic’ on a public crusade to highlight the dangers of ‘unsubstantiated belief’ (which is exactly how Shermer presents himself) would surely be quick to point these FACTS out, especially given the fact that a million people have been slaughtered in the Middle East as a result of these official government conspiracy theories. The economic, social and environmental damage wrought by the government/ media’s ‘extraordinary claims’ is beyond human comprehension.

    And yet, staggeringly, Shermer does not point any of this out. Instead he acts like an obnoxious stand up commedian and makes a bunch of wise cracks about the kinds of people who DO point these facts out. And the pseudo intellectual TED audience chuckle like naughty school children. Meanwhile the illegal wars of genocide continue. Bush and Blair have already been convicted of war crimes under the terms of the Geneva Convention and Shermer and his followers still remain completely UN-skeptical about the government’s continued foreign and domestic policy. Even Orwell himself would have found this situation too jaw droopingly Orwellian.

    “….Thus, science and skepticism are synonymous, and in both cases it’s okay to change your mind if the evidence changes. It all comes down to this question: What are the facts in support or against a particular claim?….”

    Good question.

    Here is some verifiable evidence (not theories, not beliefs, not claims) for Mr Shermer and his merry band of ‘skeptics’ to consider very carefully….. LINK

Thanks for your comments!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: