| Revision as of 13:22, 12 January 2006 edit69.138.128.97 (talk) →External links← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:53, 14 January 2006 edit undo82.69.78.181 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| ] "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity" is a central tenet of skeptical thought.]] | ] "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity" is a central tenet of skeptical thought.]] | ||
| ''' |
'''Scepticism''' or '''Skepticism''' can mean: | ||
| * ] - a philosophical position according to which much of what we normally take as knowledge is not knowledge, or is not justified. The most extreme |
* ] - a philosophical position according to which much of what we normally take as knowledge is not knowledge, or is not justified. The most extreme scepticism holds that no belief can ever be justified. An example of a more moderate form of scepticism is the view that we lack knowledge of the external world because our beliefs about the external world are not absolutely certain. | ||
| * ] or ] - a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of extraordinary claims, and seeks to prove or disprove them using the ]. | * ] or ] - a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of extraordinary claims, and seeks to prove or disprove them using the ]. | ||
| Additionally, the word " |
Additionally, the word "sceptic" is commonly used in today's ] to describe someone who habitually doubts commonly accepted ideas. | ||
| == Spelling == | == Spelling == | ||
| The word was traditionally spelled ''scepticism'', but as the word ''sceptic'' is often mispronounced ''septic'' (as in relating to ]) by speakers of other languages and is confusing to those who are trying to learn ], the spelling ''skepticism'' came into use. Much as with ''-ize''/''-ise'' endings for words, both spellings are correct, but skepticism is normally used in ] while scepticism is usually preferred in ] (with some exceptions). The Australian Skeptics despite using Commonwealth English use the North American spelling for their organisation to distance themself from the historic definition of ''scepticism'' which is more akin to cynicism which Australian Skeptics view as the polar opposite of Skepticism. | The word was traditionally spelled ''scepticism'', but as the word ''sceptic'' is often mispronounced ''septic'' (as in relating to ]) by speakers of other languages and is confusing to those who are trying to learn ], the spelling ''skepticism'' came into use. Much as with ''-ize''/''-ise'' endings for words, both spellings are correct, but skepticism is normally used in ] while scepticism is usually preferred in ] (with some exceptions). The Australian Skeptics despite using Commonwealth English use the North American spelling for their organisation to distance themself from the historic definition of ''scepticism'' which is more akin to cynicism which Australian Skeptics view as the polar opposite of Skepticism. | ||
| == Philosophical |
== Philosophical scepticism == | ||
| ] originated in ancient ]. One of its first proponents was ] of ] (c. 360-275 B.C.), who |
] originated in ancient ]. One of its first proponents was ] of ] (c. 360-275 B.C.), who travelled and studied as far as India, and propounded the adoption of 'practical' scepticism. Subsequently, in the 'New Academy' ] (c. 315-241 B.C.) and ] (c. 213-129 B.C.) developed more theoretical perspectives, by which conceptions of absolute truth and falsity were refuted. Carneades criticised the views of the Dogmatists, especially supporters of ], asserting that absolute certainty of knowledge is impossible. ] (c. A.D. 200), the main authority for Greek scepticism, developed the position further, incorporating aspects of ] into the basis for asserting knowledge. | ||
| Greek |
Greek sceptics criticised the Stoics, accusing them of ]. For the sceptics, the ] mode of argument was untenable, as it relied on propositions which could not be said to be either true or false without relying on further propositions. This was the ], whereby every proposition must rely on other propositions in order to maintain its validity. In addition, the sceptics argued that two propositions could not rely on each other, as this would create a ] (as p implies q and q implies p). For the sceptics logic was thus an inadequate measure of truth which could create as many problems as it claimed to have solved. Truth was not, however, necessarily unobtainable, but rather an idea which did not yet exist in a pure form. Although scepticism was accused of denying the possibility of truth, in actual fact it appears to have mainly been a critical school which merely claimed that logicians had not discovered truth. | ||
| == Religious and Scientific |
== Religious and Scientific Scepticism == | ||
| Religious |
Religious scepticism and scientific scepticism are not actually related to philosophical Scepticism. Most people who are ] of claims of the ] and ] are not adherents of classical philosophical Scepticism. Where as a philosophical Sceptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, a religious or scientific sceptic merely seeks proof before accepting extraordinary claims. Scientific sceptics employ ]. | ||
| Religious |
Religious sceptics often focus on the core tenets of religions, such as the existence of divine beings or reports of earthly miracles, while scientific sceptics tend to target cryptozoology, UFO encounters, and alternative science. Specifically when critics of controversial religious, scientific or paranormal claims are said to be ''sceptical'', this only refers to their taking a position of doubt. | ||
| === |
=== Sceptics and cynics === | ||
| Scientific |
Scientific sceptics are often confused with, or even denounced as, ]. However, useful sceptical criticism must involve an objective and methodological examination of the subject. Cynicism, on the other hand, is a viewpoint that maintains a generally negative attitude toward human motivations and sincerity. While the two positions are not mutually exclusive, and some skeptics may also be cynics, each represents a fundamentally different philosophical approach to understanding the nature of the world. | ||
| Many critics accuse scientific |
Many critics accuse scientific sceptics of being "closed-minded" or of inhibiting scientific progress. However, some supporters of scientific scepticism argue that these criticisms come from ], ], and ] who are motivated to discredit rational investigation of their claims. | ||
| === Debunkers === | === Debunkers === | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| Since the issues of dispute being treated usually require deep understanding of a subject, heated discussions may arise in the public based more on one's own opinion rather than factual analysis. ]s can arise in the public, with debunkers offended by the deception of charlatans and the gullibility of their public, and the latter ones offended by the allegations of the debunkers. | Since the issues of dispute being treated usually require deep understanding of a subject, heated discussions may arise in the public based more on one's own opinion rather than factual analysis. ]s can arise in the public, with debunkers offended by the deception of charlatans and the gullibility of their public, and the latter ones offended by the allegations of the debunkers. | ||
| ===Scientific |
===Scientific Scepticism as Inertia=== | ||
| Scientific |
Scientific scepticism is both useful to, and required by scientists. As most new scientific papers contain material errors that render their conclusions incorrect{{ref|wrong}}, uncritical acceptance of all new discoveries would quickly bog down scientific progress. The bias against new ideas and unusual inventions tends to quickly weed out the hoaxes and experimental flukes. While such a cautious approach towards new ideas may mean that some ideas are initially dismissed, independent corroboration is rarely difficult for legitimate discoveries. Controversy is common among scientists when new ] are first presented, until ] can ensure that experimental results can be repeated according to the ]. As a consequence, many scientists reject all new discoveries until the results have been independently confirmed. This may seem extreme, but in addition to honest mistakes in experimentation or statistical analysis, there are also charlatans who seek to profit from the momentary fame of a false discovery. | ||
| In ] ], more than a year after ] had flown their historic first flight at ] on ] ], ] magazine carried an article doubting "alleged" flights that the Wrights claimed to have made. With |
In ] ], more than a year after ] had flown their historic first flight at ] on ] ], ] magazine carried an article doubting "alleged" flights that the Wrights claimed to have made. With sombre authority, the magazine cited as its main reasons for doubting the Wrights the fact that they had not invited the American press to cover the alleged flights, that they refused to disclose the details of their flying machines, and that they were unwilling to repeat the demonstration for verification purposes. Critics of sceptics like to point to this as an example of how scientists slow down the acceptance of new inventions, however the Wright Brothers were intentionally keeping their inventions secret until they could achieve fully controlled flight, mostly to keep their competitors from appropriating their inventions. | ||
| Most revolutionary modern day inventions, such as the ], invented in ], are subject to intense |
Most revolutionary modern day inventions, such as the ], invented in ], are subject to intense scepticism and even ridicule when they are first announced. However, those inventions which can survive the gauntlet of disbelief are just as quickly accepted. For example, less than a year after being laughed off a stage in Australia during a presentation on their new microscope, ] and ] won the ] in physics. | ||
| ==Quotations== | ==Quotations== | ||
| === Religious and Scientific |
=== Religious and Scientific Scepticism === | ||
| (The first two quotes are often erroneously attributed to ].) | (The first two quotes are often erroneously attributed to ].) | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| :"Keeping an open mind is a virtue—but not so open that your brains fall out." - ] | :"Keeping an open mind is a virtue—but not so open that your brains fall out." - ] | ||
| :"A wise |
:"A wise scepticism is the first attribute of a good critic." - ] | ||
| :"I think therefore I am." - ] | :"I think therefore I am." - ] | ||
| ==Famous |
==Famous sceptics== | ||
| Philosophical |
Philosophical Sceptics | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| Scientific |
Scientific Sceptics | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| == Essays on famous |
== Essays on famous sceptics == | ||
| * A critique of Gardner, "In the Name of Skepticism: Martin Gardner's Misrepresentations of ]," by Bruce I. Kodish, appeared in ''General Semantics Bulletin'', Number 71, 2004. The ''Bulletin'' is published by the ]. | * A critique of Gardner, "In the Name of Skepticism: Martin Gardner's Misrepresentations of ]," by Bruce I. Kodish, appeared in ''General Semantics Bulletin'', Number 71, 2004. The ''Bulletin'' is published by the ]. | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| * ], . An exposition of ]'s skepticism through the writings of ]. | * ], . An exposition of ]'s skepticism through the writings of ]. | ||
| ==Organizations dedicated to |
==Organizations dedicated to scepticism== | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
Revision as of 00:53, 14 January 2006
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
- for the article on the Finnish doom metal band, see Skepticism.
Scepticism or Skepticism can mean:
- Philosophical scepticism - a philosophical position according to which much of what we normally take as knowledge is not knowledge, or is not justified. The most extreme scepticism holds that no belief can ever be justified. An example of a more moderate form of scepticism is the view that we lack knowledge of the external world because our beliefs about the external world are not absolutely certain.
- Religious or Scientific scepticism - a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of extraordinary claims, and seeks to prove or disprove them using the scientific method.
Additionally, the word "sceptic" is commonly used in today's vernacular to describe someone who habitually doubts commonly accepted ideas.
Spelling
The word was traditionally spelled scepticism, but as the word sceptic is often mispronounced septic (as in relating to waste management) by speakers of other languages and is confusing to those who are trying to learn English, the spelling skepticism came into use. Much as with -ize/-ise endings for words, both spellings are correct, but skepticism is normally used in North American English while scepticism is usually preferred in Commonwealth English (with some exceptions). The Australian Skeptics despite using Commonwealth English use the North American spelling for their organisation to distance themself from the historic definition of scepticism which is more akin to cynicism which Australian Skeptics view as the polar opposite of Skepticism.
Philosophical scepticism
Philosophical scepticism originated in ancient Greek philosophy. One of its first proponents was Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360-275 B.C.), who travelled and studied as far as India, and propounded the adoption of 'practical' scepticism. Subsequently, in the 'New Academy' Arcesilaos (c. 315-241 B.C.) and Carneades (c. 213-129 B.C.) developed more theoretical perspectives, by which conceptions of absolute truth and falsity were refuted. Carneades criticised the views of the Dogmatists, especially supporters of Stoicism, asserting that absolute certainty of knowledge is impossible. Sextus Empiricus (c. A.D. 200), the main authority for Greek scepticism, developed the position further, incorporating aspects of empiricism into the basis for asserting knowledge.
Greek sceptics criticised the Stoics, accusing them of dogmatism. For the sceptics, the logical mode of argument was untenable, as it relied on propositions which could not be said to be either true or false without relying on further propositions. This was the regress argument, whereby every proposition must rely on other propositions in order to maintain its validity. In addition, the sceptics argued that two propositions could not rely on each other, as this would create a circular argument (as p implies q and q implies p). For the sceptics logic was thus an inadequate measure of truth which could create as many problems as it claimed to have solved. Truth was not, however, necessarily unobtainable, but rather an idea which did not yet exist in a pure form. Although scepticism was accused of denying the possibility of truth, in actual fact it appears to have mainly been a critical school which merely claimed that logicians had not discovered truth.
Religious and Scientific Scepticism
Religious scepticism and scientific scepticism are not actually related to philosophical Scepticism. Most people who are sceptical of claims of the paranormal and supernatural are not adherents of classical philosophical Scepticism. Where as a philosophical Sceptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, a religious or scientific sceptic merely seeks proof before accepting extraordinary claims. Scientific sceptics employ critical thinking.
Religious sceptics often focus on the core tenets of religions, such as the existence of divine beings or reports of earthly miracles, while scientific sceptics tend to target cryptozoology, UFO encounters, and alternative science. Specifically when critics of controversial religious, scientific or paranormal claims are said to be sceptical, this only refers to their taking a position of doubt.
Sceptics and cynics
Scientific sceptics are often confused with, or even denounced as, cynics. However, useful sceptical criticism must involve an objective and methodological examination of the subject. Cynicism, on the other hand, is a viewpoint that maintains a generally negative attitude toward human motivations and sincerity. While the two positions are not mutually exclusive, and some skeptics may also be cynics, each represents a fundamentally different philosophical approach to understanding the nature of the world.
Many critics accuse scientific sceptics of being "closed-minded" or of inhibiting scientific progress. However, some supporters of scientific scepticism argue that these criticisms come from pseudoscientists, paranormalists, and spiritualists who are motivated to discredit rational investigation of their claims.
Debunkers
Debunkers are a particular group of skeptics who are adept at exposing the truth behind the extraordinary claims of charlatans. Famous debunkers include James Randi, Basava Premanand, Penn and Teller and Harry Houdini.
Since the issues of dispute being treated usually require deep understanding of a subject, heated discussions may arise in the public based more on one's own opinion rather than factual analysis. Flame wars can arise in the public, with debunkers offended by the deception of charlatans and the gullibility of their public, and the latter ones offended by the allegations of the debunkers.
Scientific Scepticism as Inertia
Scientific scepticism is both useful to, and required by scientists. As most new scientific papers contain material errors that render their conclusions incorrect, uncritical acceptance of all new discoveries would quickly bog down scientific progress. The bias against new ideas and unusual inventions tends to quickly weed out the hoaxes and experimental flukes. While such a cautious approach towards new ideas may mean that some ideas are initially dismissed, independent corroboration is rarely difficult for legitimate discoveries. Controversy is common among scientists when new hypotheses are first presented, until reproducibility can ensure that experimental results can be repeated according to the scientific method. As a consequence, many scientists reject all new discoveries until the results have been independently confirmed. This may seem extreme, but in addition to honest mistakes in experimentation or statistical analysis, there are also charlatans who seek to profit from the momentary fame of a false discovery.
In January 1905, more than a year after Wilbur and Orville Wright had flown their historic first flight at Kitty Hawk on December 17 1903, Scientific American magazine carried an article doubting "alleged" flights that the Wrights claimed to have made. With sombre authority, the magazine cited as its main reasons for doubting the Wrights the fact that they had not invited the American press to cover the alleged flights, that they refused to disclose the details of their flying machines, and that they were unwilling to repeat the demonstration for verification purposes. Critics of sceptics like to point to this as an example of how scientists slow down the acceptance of new inventions, however the Wright Brothers were intentionally keeping their inventions secret until they could achieve fully controlled flight, mostly to keep their competitors from appropriating their inventions.
Most revolutionary modern day inventions, such as the scanning tunneling microscope, invented in 1981, are subject to intense scepticism and even ridicule when they are first announced. However, those inventions which can survive the gauntlet of disbelief are just as quickly accepted. For example, less than a year after being laughed off a stage in Australia during a presentation on their new microscope, Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer won the Nobel Prize in physics.
Quotations
Religious and Scientific Scepticism
(The first two quotes are often erroneously attributed to Carl Sagan.)
- "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi
- "Keeping an open mind is a virtue—but not so open that your brains fall out." - James Oberg
- "A wise scepticism is the first attribute of a good critic." - James Russell Lowell
- "I think therefore I am." - Rene Descartes
Famous sceptics
Philosophical Sceptics
Scientific Sceptics
Essays on famous sceptics
- A critique of Gardner, "In the Name of Skepticism: Martin Gardner's Misrepresentations of General Semantics," by Bruce I. Kodish, appeared in General Semantics Bulletin, Number 71, 2004. The Bulletin is published by the Institute of General Semantics.
- Peter Suber, Classical Skepticism. An exposition of Pyrrho's skepticism through the writings of Sextus Empiricus.
Organizations dedicated to scepticism
- Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
- The Skeptics Society
- James Randi Educational Foundation
- Rationalist International
TV shows and documentaries based upon skepticism
External links
- Responding to Skepticism, by Keith DeRose. Introduction to *Skepticism: A Contemporary Reader*, Oxford UP. Describes the main lines of response to philosophical skepticism.
- Skepticism and the Veil of Perception, book about philosophical skepticism & perceptual knowledge.
- The Problem of Defeasible Justification, paper about philosophical skepticism.
- Skeptic Links
- James Randi Educational Foundation
- Skepticality
- Skeptic's Dictionary
- Skeptic Report
- Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
- Rationalist International
- Skeptics Society
- Skeptics in Europe
- Indian Rationalist Association
- Skeptics Canada
- Australian Skeptics
- Spanish Skeptics
- In Defense of the Tools of Skepticism
- The Logical fallacies
- Million Dollar Challenge... A Fraud?
- The problem of skepticism, explained at the Galilean Library
- Skeptic Ring
- UK-Skeptics
- SkepticWiki Skeptic Encyclopedia Project
- Skeptic Friends Network
References
- Most scientific papers are probably wrong - Kurt Kleiner - New Scientist - August 2005