Article Is there a problem with skepticism?

[C C]

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2023/10/is...kepticism/

EXCERPTS: One of my best friends is a skeptic. And yet for years he has been trying to convince me not to use the S-word. You see, every time he talks to someone about the activities of our local group, New York City Skeptics, tries to promote the Skeptical Inquirer, or our former podcast Rationally Speaking, he runs into the same problem: people are immediately turned off by a term they interpret as characterizing a persistent doubter, someone who scoffs at every new notion, a pessimist, or a prophet of doom. And who wants to be that?

Of course, we know better. [...] Skeptics ... ideally are curious and open-minded people who assess beliefs based on arguments and evidence, who inquire into things, and who are willing to change their positions if the facts on the ground demand it. Who wouldn’t want to be that?

I was reminded of this contrast between what I shall refer henceforth as skepticism (lowercase-s, the common attitude) and Skepticism (capital-S, the inquiry approach) when reading an otherwise splendid and highly recommended essay by philosopher Daniel Williams in the Boston Review...

[...] Williams goes on to explain why there simply is no such thing as the building blocks of misinformation, because all six alleged components are also part of perfectly sound cases of reliable information.

[...] The bit where I paused and did a double take is where Williams says that the problem—far from being widespread gullibility among the general public—is that there is too much skepticism. ... It took me a little bit to realize that Williams, who is no fool, is talking about skepticism, not Skepticism.

[...] A major reason people buy into conspiracy theories and all sorts of other bunk is either because it reinforces their preexisting worldview...

[...] When the problem is “skepticism” of mainstream media and institutions, these institutions must work to rebuild public confidence, which is why it matters very much what journalists, policymakers, and scientists say to the public... (MORE - missing details)

[Zinjanthropos]

Skeptics ... ideally are curious and open-minded people who assess beliefs based on arguments and evidence, who inquire into things, and who are willing to change their positions if the facts on the ground demand it. Who wouldn’t want to be that?]Of course, we know better. [...] Skeptics ... ideally are curious and open-minded people who assess beliefs based on arguments and evidence, who inquire into things, and who are willing to change their positions if the facts on the ground demand it. Who wouldn’t want to be that?

The big thing is that as a skeptic I don't feel the pressure to conform to anything people believe. Probably because there's no reason to. Proof would be nice.

[Ostronomos]

A skeptic may reserve judgement until they have enough evidence on a subject. However, a fine line may be drawn between a skeptic and an atheist, where the latter can cast doubt on that idea of a God.

It is no more than an argument from ignorance.

[Magical Realist]

Initial skeptism in uaps, as a methodology and not as ideology, is good in that it eliminates mundane possibilities. What is bad is when it insists its speculations are all more probable than the actual thing that is sighted or detected. That's why confirmation bias tends to take over and blinds an ideological skeptic to the novel and phenomenal reality of the uap itself.

[Ostronomos]

Initial skeptism in uaps, as a methodology and not as ideology, is good in that it eliminates mundane possibilities. What is bad is when it insists its speculations are all more probable than the actual thing that is sighted or detected. That's why confirmation bias tends to take over and blinds an ideological skeptic to the novel and phenomenal reality of the uap itself.

Brilliantly stated.

[Zinjanthropos]

I'm not skeptical about gods because I don't need to go any farther than a believer in one. Should I be skeptical about a believer who proclaims the only way to God is to be shit-faced? It fits in with all the other secondary beliefs like answers prayers, performs miracles, loves us, etc.

I'm even skeptical of my own stuff like....Maybe that's the answer...God isnt the primary belief. It's actually the myriad of beliefs people attribute to a God that creates the deity.

[C C]

In my book, the "preacher" class or social stratum includes both scholars who personify their principles and regulating concepts as "beings" (including gods) and those who do not incarnate such (but still encourage people to be obeisant to those ideas).

Sometimes I don't see much difference. Just two contrasting approaches (religious and secular) to worshiping abstract #### they make up.

On one hand, I appreciate the preacher class for bringing order and purpose to human communities. On the other hand, there's an impulse for individual freedom and the contrarian drive to rebel against the pretentious, authoritarian snots.

_

[Zinjanthropos]

In my book, the "preacher" class or social stratum includes both scholars who personify their principles and regulating concepts as "beings" (including gods) and those who do not incarnate such (but still encourage people to be obeisant to those ideas).

Sometimes I don't see much difference. Just two contrasting approaches (religious and secular) to worshiping abstract #### they make up.

On one hand, I appreciate the preacher class for bringing order and purpose to human communities. On the other hand, there's an impulse for individual freedom and the contrarian drive to rebel against the pretentious, authoritarian snots.

_

If there is a problem with being a skeptic then perhaps it’s similar to the one facing stand up comedians, be careful what you say and who you say it to. Know your audience.

Watched this video where some guy in a free state (can’t remember the country) was addressing a gathering, exhorting a frenzied crowd to save Palestine. Only thing was, he wore a woman’s dress and I thought WOW!, I can’t tell whether he is genuine pro Palestinian or making a statement against regimes that don’t fly the rainbow flag. My mind kind of leans to the latter. Was he creating the juxtaposition, help save a country that won’t save him?

Was he brilliant or just an idiot? Yet in the end I’m not sure if by casting the skeptical glare at this whole scene was the right thing to do but I can live with it. Giving people something else to think about is pretty much all a skeptic really does.