Is Skepticism a virtue or a bad thing?

[McCulloch]

Is Skepticism a virtue or a bad thing?

[McCulloch]

What kind of skepticism are we talking about here? Philosophical skepticism, or skepticism as it is used in everyday language, which is actually parsimony?

A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty. A skeptic is one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic� with “cynic� and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,� we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.

Does that help?

[Cathar1950]

What kind of skepticism are we talking about here? Philosophical skepticism, or skepticism as it is used in everyday language, which is actually parsimony?

A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty. A skeptic is one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic� with “cynic� and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,� we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.

Does that help?

I can hardly wonder what it would be like if we never doubted anything.
I am all for magical thinking and it seems to be one of those wonders of childhood when before you discover some doubt is a pretty good start.
I suppose doubt is relieved when we can depend on something that is useful to us.

Can you really doubt everything?
Usually if you really function on a lever of trusting everything or nothing, something including some of our experiences are going to make sense to us or we would be possible mentally unstable, at least I would feel nuts.
It just seems at some point our explanations have to make sense or they are not much of an explanation. It seems only natural to doubt until I am convinced and it is amazing how much we can understand by doubting.

But the believer looks at doubt or skepticism as a weakness or flaw as if their loyalty to an belief was at risk.

[Skyler]

I think that skepticism has its place. Almost all of us are skeptical about one view or another; we all also have our "pet" views about which we turn our "skepticism" dial down a bit. So it's not necessarily wrong. But, it can be taken too far.

[Zzyzx]

.

I think that skepticism has its place. Almost all of us are skeptical about one view or another;

Some are more skeptical than others. Modern research seems to indicate that some skepticism or resistance to authority is acquired very early in life – almost "from birth" (if not actually pre-birth or genetically influence) AND that hormones are involved in "trust". I am not a psychologist and do not profess any special knowledge of this condition, but I do read studies that reach that conclusion.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/0 ... ers.brains

we all also have our "pet" views about which we turn our "skepticism" dial down a bit.

Yes, humans are biased. Therefore, it is often wise to gather information from wide sources to cancel biases as much as possible.

So it's not necessarily wrong. But, it can be taken too far.

How far is "too far"? What criteria are used to make that determination? Who decides?

Is skepticism taken "too far" when one doubts the existence of "god"?

Is skepticism a good thing when applied to other "gods" (among the thousands available)?

[Skyler]

.

I think that skepticism has its place. Almost all of us are skeptical about one view or another;

Some are more skeptical than others. Modern research seems to indicate that some skepticism or resistance to authority is acquired very early in life – almost "from birth" (if not actually pre-birth or genetically influence) AND that hormones are involved in "trust". I am not a psychologist and do not profess any special knowledge of this condition, but I do read studies that reach that conclusion.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/0 ... ers.brains

we all also have our "pet" views about which we turn our "skepticism" dial down a bit.

Yes, humans are biased. Therefore, it is often wise to gather information from wide sources to cancel biases as much as possible.

That's why I'm here.

So it's not necessarily wrong. But, it can be taken too far.

How far is "too far"? What criteria are used to make that determination? Who decides?

When does a pond become a lake? How big does it have to be?

It's possible to be so skeptical that you refuse to believe that just because something that looked like bread provided nourishment for you before, that it will again, and so you die of starvation. David Hume addressed that issue in his "Enquiry of Human Understanding". I'd say that's taking skepticism too far.

On the other hand, I'd say that believing that anything that looks like bread is nourishing would be having not enough skepticism.

Is skepticism taken "too far" when one doubts the existence of "god"?

I have no idea. My skeptical dial is turned down too far on that topic to give you an objective answer. But, I'm rather inclined to think that it is.

Is skepticism a good thing when applied to other "gods" (among the thousands available)?

Skepticism is a good thing when applied to any God or gods, if applied consistently and in moderation. But, like I said before, it's possible to take it too far.

That being said, I don't know of any way to "measure" skepticism other than by the conclusions you reach from your arguments, so perhaps I'm engaging in a purely speculative debate?

[McCulloch]

So [skepticism] not necessarily wrong. But, it can be taken too far.

How far is "too far"? What criteria are used to make that determination? Who decides?

Skepticism is a good thing when applied to any God or gods, if applied consistently and in moderation. But, like I said before, it's possible to take it too far.

I'm with you in the idea that the principles of skepticism should be applied consistently. Can any of the reasons you use to reject the Gods of the Muslims, Deists, Mormons, Catholics, Sikhs, Hindus, Wiccans, Unitarians, Jews, Scientologists, Urantia Book readers, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Semi-Pelagianists, Modalists, Gnostics, Swedenborgianists, Christadelphians, Rastafarians ... be used against belief in your God?

How would you deal with the challenge that too far means going against your own cherished belief?

[Skyler]

So [skepticism] not necessarily wrong. But, it can be taken too far.

How far is "too far"? What criteria are used to make that determination? Who decides?

Skepticism is a good thing when applied to any God or gods, if applied consistently and in moderation. But, like I said before, it's possible to take it too far.

I'm with you in the idea that the principles of skepticism should be applied consistently. Can any of the reasons you use to reject the Gods of the Muslims, Deists, Mormons, Catholics, Sikhs, Hindus, Wiccans, Unitarians, Jews, Scientologists, Urantia Book readers, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Semi-Pelagianists, Modalists, Gnostics, Swedenborgianists, Christadelphians, Rastafarians ... be used against belief in your God?

I don't think so, no.

"...Semi-Pelagianists" Have you been reading all my posts, McCulloch?

How would you deal with the challenge that too far means going against your own cherished belief?

I cherish the belief that food will provide nourishment. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Goat]

So [skepticism] not necessarily wrong. But, it can be taken too far.

How far is "too far"? What criteria are used to make that determination? Who decides?

Skepticism is a good thing when applied to any God or gods, if applied consistently and in moderation. But, like I said before, it's possible to take it too far.

I'm with you in the idea that the principles of skepticism should be applied consistently. Can any of the reasons you use to reject the Gods of the Muslims, Deists, Mormons, Catholics, Sikhs, Hindus, Wiccans, Unitarians, Jews, Scientologists, Urantia Book readers, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Semi-Pelagianists, Modalists, Gnostics, Swedenborgianists, Christadelphians, Rastafarians ... be used against belief in your God?

I don't think so, no.

"...Semi-Pelagianists" Have you been reading all my posts, McCulloch?

How would you deal with the challenge that too far means going against your own cherished belief?

I cherish the belief that food will provide nourishment. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

Now, that depends on the food, doesn't it. The Quadrotriticale might have a virus in it that renders it nutritionally inert

[Skyler]

So [skepticism] not necessarily wrong. But, it can be taken too far.

How far is "too far"? What criteria are used to make that determination? Who decides?

Skepticism is a good thing when applied to any God or gods, if applied consistently and in moderation. But, like I said before, it's possible to take it too far.

I'm with you in the idea that the principles of skepticism should be applied consistently. Can any of the reasons you use to reject the Gods of the Muslims, Deists, Mormons, Catholics, Sikhs, Hindus, Wiccans, Unitarians, Jews, Scientologists, Urantia Book readers, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Semi-Pelagianists, Modalists, Gnostics, Swedenborgianists, Christadelphians, Rastafarians ... be used against belief in your God?

I don't think so, no.

"...Semi-Pelagianists" Have you been reading all my posts, McCulloch?

How would you deal with the challenge that too far means going against your own cherished belief?

I cherish the belief that food will provide nourishment. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

Now, that depends on the food, doesn't it. The Quadrotriticale might have a virus in it that renders it nutritionally inert

True. The truth of a belief is independent to whether or not it's me that cherishes it. Or, you that cherishes it.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is Skepticism a virtue or a bad thing?

Skepticism is a very bad thing because it causes doubt of beliefs promoted by self-appointed priests and prophets -- and could interfere with their livelihood.