We have moved into using the word "skeptical" in an unfortunate way, when we actually mean "disbelieving." I am skeptical of political claims by Republicans, but I am disbelieving of those by Democrats. I don't approach the latter with an attitude of "Well, this could be true, but I will reserve judgement until I know more." I begin by rejecting the claim. It takes a lot for me to admit "Huh. Well that turned out to be true after all." With Republican claims, I could go either way.
I think the distinction is important because skeptical feels like an intellectually superior position to take about many things. We are thoughtful, we have high standards for being convinced, we are a skeptic, not easily taken in, doncha know. Not gullible like the hoi polloi. But reflexively disbelieving any religious claim does not make one a religious skeptic who regards claims of miracles with suspicion, but an unbeliever who simply rejects them. There are people who are skeptical of the efficacy of one vaccine or another, but most people who proudly bear the title of skeptic are just anti-vaxxers.
We are seldom skeptical about a topic for long. It takes intellectual effort, and we all prefer efficiency. We like to come down on one side or the other, having a ready belief about what is probably happening.
It came up today with someone noting a link about long covid and saying they are skeptical. No, they aren't skeptical at all. Skeptics think about a subject. This particular person is not regarding such claims warily, he is simply rejecting them because he is now certain that all such claims are bunk. He might be convinced, I suppose, by sustained and mounting evidence reported, but I am not even sure of that. He might simply be a disbeliever forever, congratulating himself on how wise he is. You can't take us in. the Dwarves are for the dwarves.
I don't think it is unreasonable to be a disbeliever about many things. Many ideas circulate for years even though they are ridiculous. But be careful not to give yourself credit for a wise attitude when one is not in evidence.
I am skeptical of your claim to be a skeptic - and with some people I am disbelieving of that claim, right out of the chute.
8 comments:
I saw that and wondered which way his skepticism was headed.
I didn't even check
It looks like there are two things at play here: the a priori probability you assign the claim and the amount of thinking you put into updating that. Life is short, so I have to pick which claims I want to investigate, and I take the a priori probability into account when selecting.
Since even the devil tells the truth sometimes and even the most honest person can be mistaken, nobody gets an automatic initial 0 or 1, though some people come close.
@ Donna B - the article was decent. I have no doubt in which direction the posting person was skeptical. They may go off my sidebar soon. I've about had it, on a half-dozen subjects.
I was quite skeptical of the claims, right after the Dobbs decision, that a ten year old girl was even that moment having to be rushed to another state for a medically-necessary abortion without which she would suffer horrifying permanent damage. The timing was too perfect; and then I saw an article citing the state attorney general stating that he'd never heard of this case, which convinced me that doubt was quite justified.
The story turned out to be true, though. I guess that's your point: at some point, either the evidence is good enough to overcome skepticism or else the skeptic has really made a decision one way or the other.
Maybe we could substitute "I'm suspicious of these claims" for cases where -- while not outright rejecting the possibility of truth -- we strongly believe it's not going to work out that way, and thus are not persuaded even by fairly strong (but not completely dispositive) evidence. There was very good evidence for Aristotelian physics that convinced everyone for centuries; even today it's easy to offer 'proofs' of them to children that they can readily experience firsthand, and are likely to accept until they are taught enough math to understand why the apparently true isn't actually.
I had the same "too perfect" experience, only to have that reversed on me. Yet I have heard since then that there is another reversal, with the girl's mother saying none of the media stories are true. I haven't looked into it. That could be spurious as well.
AVI, from what I have read the pregnancy/abortion story is likely true as the doctor did file the necessary reports (with some incorrect information from an unclear source) but the mother is insisting that the situation is being 'misunderstood'
Post a Comment