When it is okay to be skeptical?
I run into this question all the time. In which areas should you be skeptical, and where should skepticism not be allowed? Science, religion, public discourse, family relations, friend relations ....
"Proof" is never absolute (we could be in the matrix), but items that tend to make something more or less likely include straightforward inferences drawn from perceptions taken from the 5 sense (with a strong preference for sight, for some reason). The more proof we have, the closer something is to being a "proved" fact. There are difference types of proof, though, and not all of them have to do with the senses.
(The fact/opinion distinction answers most of my questions above, I think, but whether you should voice your skepticism is family and friend relations is a different discussion. :-) )
Power of personal revelation
For instance, there is personal revelation. Personal revelation is something that occurs to you but that you could not share with another. A deep feeling of inner peace, a core certainty, a vision of God, etc. It is a type of proof that may be 100% persuasive to you, but for which you have no logical reason to expect to persuade anyone else.
These revelations are very powerful to those who receive them but not persuasive to others. Why? Because many have received personal revelations that turned out to be false (think of all the religions that you don't follow), or the "cults" like David Koresh, etc. Of course, the fact that someone's way of reaching a conclusion has flaws doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong. Even if we postulated that the delivery mechanism was logically incorrect, even a broken clock is right twice a day. More formally, the Fallacy Fallacy holds that a conclusion is not invalidated simply because the argument for that conclusion is incorrect.
That said, sometimes personal revelation may be the best approach, either when (a) there is no other method and a conclusion is needed, or (b) there was a really powerful personal revelation.
There can be problems, though, when external facts interfere with personal revelation. It could be that the external facts are wrong. Maybe they were misinterpreted, or the person taking them lied, or the instruments were broken, or the communication was flawed, or ...
There is also a power in falsifiable hypotheses. I'm not going to say "science" because that term has been (I think purposefully) problematized. This is just saying, "I think fact X is true. It is more likely to be so if I check to make sure that X is not really Y, Z, or Q. So I'm going to try to make a test that shows it, and I'll tell others how I made that test, and we'll see if their results match mine. Maybe they'll come up with a better way to prove me more likely right or wrong, or even a better idea."
Everyday living
Of course, for many facts during everyday life, we don't have time to do our own independent tests (even if we had other resources), so we have to find shortcuts. This is usually through some sort of authority.
Who should we trust? Webster's Dictionary? Wikipedia? U.S. Census? Congressional Budget Office? Catholic Church? American Medical Association? Drudge? Fox? CNN? MSNBC? Personally, I try to gauge different authorities for different types of facts. If I want someone's date of birth or the capital of a city, Wikipedia is great. The actual name for a movie will probably come from IMDB. Etc. My level of trust grows with each time I am able to use the information without finding a flaw, and, for those I trust, the transparency with which the rare flaws are fixed.
So, I get that people can't always take the time and resources to reach the best scientific reason for most of the facts in their lives. Why would we? That would be remaking the wheel. Very frustrating to me, though, is when people create extremely different levels of proof required, as well as when they fail to understand the limited persuasive ability of personal revelation.
For instance, a global warming skeptic will often throw up all sorts of odd smoke screens. The less informed will make silly comments about how it is cold at some location at some time, so global warming is wrong. The slightly more informed will say how we don't understand how carbon functions and how the fluctuations in solar output function, and we don't understand F, G, H, I, J, K, and L, so ... there must be no human-caused global warming that matters. But my point isn't whether global warming is occurring or whether it is human induced -- it is that those same people will very often not apply that same level of skepticism to other areas of their lives. Is it okay to ride on an airplane? Is it possible to communicate via satellite? Should I use a gene-specific cancer drug?
Of course, you may often find that there are similar areas of "skepticism" from this same person.
Evolution will likely be one. (They may even use a term like "macro-evolution," as opposed to "micro-evolution," to try to explain why we can see mutations happening all around us.
Again, I'm not saying that their conclusions must be wrong. (About evolution, I have little doubt ... but I'm not CERTAIN.) I'm saying that their approaches are inconsistent.
And this leads me back to my original question. When should we be skeptical?
In religion, most of us are skeptical about the vast majority of information out there. There are several versions of the Bible, including offshoots like Mormonism and books like in the Apocrypha. There is the Qran. The Upanishads and Vedas. The Bhagavad Gita. Etc. Most of us lean toward exactly one of these traditions (or another; I've only listed a very small smattering), and we are complete skeptics about the others. We don't FEEL like religious skeptics because most of the people around us generally agree with what we think (even if they don't act like it) ... or maybe we don't feel that way because the term "skeptic" is reserved for god-hating atheists (stupidity in the adjective intended). But I have known very few people, most extremely "new age," that I would say were not religious skeptics.
But, of course, we don't usually apply that skepticism to our own religious belief. If you are Christian ... why? Specifically, what led you to believe that Jesus was Christ? Why did you not follow the Buddha, or the path of Muhammad, or Judaism, or Shintoism, or ... ? I HIGHLY suspect that the real answer, for most people, is "My culture only had one of these depicted as the truth during my formative years, and my current culture leans heavily toward one of these." How many people have devoted true time to giving a true reading to a different religion's traditions and texts, without looking for the reason that tradition was flawed and yours was not?
Of course, the reason for this sort of belief will usually fall under a "personal revelation" category. And that's fine -- we have all had them. They just aren't very persuasive.
So, when I start debating with someone, and they mix their personal revelations in with their skepticism toward scientific principles, I find it frustrating and disconcerting. To me, that says that this person completely misunderstands, at minimum, what is logically persuasive to others. Since we are DEBATING, I feel a bit like I'm playing Candyland and my opponent doesn't realize why I have a problem with him playing the ace of spades.
If you are wondering, one large impetus for this post was watching Bill Nye's "debate" with Ken Ham. It was extremely frustrating to watch Ham consistently move the goal post. Nye wants to make a point? There must be zero possibility of doubt, and that is impossible because Ham admits he would never change his mind. How does Ham know? Because "there's this book," he keeps saying coyly. But why is "this book" (which version, by the way?) absolutely right in terms of scientific questions, and why does your personal revelation of it control? Ham's implicit answer reminds me of what my daughter used to say when she was 3: "That's why! Because!"
Luckily, she grew out of that.
Thoughts?
I run into this question all the time. In which areas should you be skeptical, and where should skepticism not be allowed? Science, religion, public discourse, family relations, friend relations ....
Let's start with a couple of terms:
- Fact: Whether something did or did not happen in a certain way at a certain time, etc.
- Opinion: "I think that X" or "I believe X" or "I feel X."
"Proof" is never absolute (we could be in the matrix), but items that tend to make something more or less likely include straightforward inferences drawn from perceptions taken from the 5 sense (with a strong preference for sight, for some reason). The more proof we have, the closer something is to being a "proved" fact. There are difference types of proof, though, and not all of them have to do with the senses.
(The fact/opinion distinction answers most of my questions above, I think, but whether you should voice your skepticism is family and friend relations is a different discussion. :-) )
Power of personal revelation
For instance, there is personal revelation. Personal revelation is something that occurs to you but that you could not share with another. A deep feeling of inner peace, a core certainty, a vision of God, etc. It is a type of proof that may be 100% persuasive to you, but for which you have no logical reason to expect to persuade anyone else.
These revelations are very powerful to those who receive them but not persuasive to others. Why? Because many have received personal revelations that turned out to be false (think of all the religions that you don't follow), or the "cults" like David Koresh, etc. Of course, the fact that someone's way of reaching a conclusion has flaws doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong. Even if we postulated that the delivery mechanism was logically incorrect, even a broken clock is right twice a day. More formally, the Fallacy Fallacy holds that a conclusion is not invalidated simply because the argument for that conclusion is incorrect.
That said, sometimes personal revelation may be the best approach, either when (a) there is no other method and a conclusion is needed, or (b) there was a really powerful personal revelation.
There can be problems, though, when external facts interfere with personal revelation. It could be that the external facts are wrong. Maybe they were misinterpreted, or the person taking them lied, or the instruments were broken, or the communication was flawed, or ...
On the other hand, we know personal revelations can be wrong, such as through one of these:
- Misinterpreted
- Drug-induced
- Seizure, stroke, low blood sugar or other mental health issue
- Dreams
There is also a power in falsifiable hypotheses. I'm not going to say "science" because that term has been (I think purposefully) problematized. This is just saying, "I think fact X is true. It is more likely to be so if I check to make sure that X is not really Y, Z, or Q. So I'm going to try to make a test that shows it, and I'll tell others how I made that test, and we'll see if their results match mine. Maybe they'll come up with a better way to prove me more likely right or wrong, or even a better idea."
Everyday living
Of course, for many facts during everyday life, we don't have time to do our own independent tests (even if we had other resources), so we have to find shortcuts. This is usually through some sort of authority.
Who should we trust? Webster's Dictionary? Wikipedia? U.S. Census? Congressional Budget Office? Catholic Church? American Medical Association? Drudge? Fox? CNN? MSNBC? Personally, I try to gauge different authorities for different types of facts. If I want someone's date of birth or the capital of a city, Wikipedia is great. The actual name for a movie will probably come from IMDB. Etc. My level of trust grows with each time I am able to use the information without finding a flaw, and, for those I trust, the transparency with which the rare flaws are fixed.
So, I get that people can't always take the time and resources to reach the best scientific reason for most of the facts in their lives. Why would we? That would be remaking the wheel. Very frustrating to me, though, is when people create extremely different levels of proof required, as well as when they fail to understand the limited persuasive ability of personal revelation.
For instance, a global warming skeptic will often throw up all sorts of odd smoke screens. The less informed will make silly comments about how it is cold at some location at some time, so global warming is wrong. The slightly more informed will say how we don't understand how carbon functions and how the fluctuations in solar output function, and we don't understand F, G, H, I, J, K, and L, so ... there must be no human-caused global warming that matters. But my point isn't whether global warming is occurring or whether it is human induced -- it is that those same people will very often not apply that same level of skepticism to other areas of their lives. Is it okay to ride on an airplane? Is it possible to communicate via satellite? Should I use a gene-specific cancer drug?
Of course, you may often find that there are similar areas of "skepticism" from this same person.
Evolution will likely be one. (They may even use a term like "macro-evolution," as opposed to "micro-evolution," to try to explain why we can see mutations happening all around us.
Again, I'm not saying that their conclusions must be wrong. (About evolution, I have little doubt ... but I'm not CERTAIN.) I'm saying that their approaches are inconsistent.
And this leads me back to my original question. When should we be skeptical?
In religion, most of us are skeptical about the vast majority of information out there. There are several versions of the Bible, including offshoots like Mormonism and books like in the Apocrypha. There is the Qran. The Upanishads and Vedas. The Bhagavad Gita. Etc. Most of us lean toward exactly one of these traditions (or another; I've only listed a very small smattering), and we are complete skeptics about the others. We don't FEEL like religious skeptics because most of the people around us generally agree with what we think (even if they don't act like it) ... or maybe we don't feel that way because the term "skeptic" is reserved for god-hating atheists (stupidity in the adjective intended). But I have known very few people, most extremely "new age," that I would say were not religious skeptics.
But, of course, we don't usually apply that skepticism to our own religious belief. If you are Christian ... why? Specifically, what led you to believe that Jesus was Christ? Why did you not follow the Buddha, or the path of Muhammad, or Judaism, or Shintoism, or ... ? I HIGHLY suspect that the real answer, for most people, is "My culture only had one of these depicted as the truth during my formative years, and my current culture leans heavily toward one of these." How many people have devoted true time to giving a true reading to a different religion's traditions and texts, without looking for the reason that tradition was flawed and yours was not?
Of course, the reason for this sort of belief will usually fall under a "personal revelation" category. And that's fine -- we have all had them. They just aren't very persuasive.
So, when I start debating with someone, and they mix their personal revelations in with their skepticism toward scientific principles, I find it frustrating and disconcerting. To me, that says that this person completely misunderstands, at minimum, what is logically persuasive to others. Since we are DEBATING, I feel a bit like I'm playing Candyland and my opponent doesn't realize why I have a problem with him playing the ace of spades.
If you are wondering, one large impetus for this post was watching Bill Nye's "debate" with Ken Ham. It was extremely frustrating to watch Ham consistently move the goal post. Nye wants to make a point? There must be zero possibility of doubt, and that is impossible because Ham admits he would never change his mind. How does Ham know? Because "there's this book," he keeps saying coyly. But why is "this book" (which version, by the way?) absolutely right in terms of scientific questions, and why does your personal revelation of it control? Ham's implicit answer reminds me of what my daughter used to say when she was 3: "That's why! Because!"
Luckily, she grew out of that.
Thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment