Should I be skeptical about skepticism? That’s an interesting notion. But after pondering the question as a good skeptic would, I’ve decided that skepticism should continue to blossom in me. And, hopefully, the world, which would be a better place with more of it.
So I’ve got to respectfully disagree with an essay that a Church of the Churchless visitor recently pointed me toward: “The Death of Skepticism.” The author, Steve Pavlina, does his best to make a convincing argument that we should be as skeptical about skepticism as we are, say, about a claim that the moon is made out of green cheese.
But I’m not convinced. The main problem with Pavlina’s piece is that he doesn’t understand what skepticism is all about. He says that skeptics are closed, while non-skeptics are open. He also says that skeptics believe in objectivity, while non-skeptics believe in subjectivity.
That’s simplistic. And wrong. Peter Suber, a philosophy professor at Earlham College, gets it right in his essay on “Classical Skepticism.” Here’s some of what he has to say in his introduction to the subject
Compared to non-skeptical philosophical positions, skepticism is very simple. It is easy to understand, although it is commonly confused with things it is not.
Skepticism in religion, for example, is not atheism. It is not even agnosticism. No genuine skeptic ever doubts or denies or disbelieves any theory, any hypothesis, or any belief. In fact, this is the only obstacle to a clear understanding of skepticism: we think we already know what it is and we are wrong.
To skeptics, this unfounded pretense to knowledge is itself an example of the greatest sin they know, which is variously called rashness, conceit, pride, dogmatism, presumption, and culpable ignorance.
To the Greeks “skepticism” meant inquiry, and a skeptic was an inquirer. The skeptics so named themselves because the essence of their position was not doubt or denial or disbelief, but continual inquiry.
They did not believe in the reality of a god, for example, but neither did they deny it. Nor did they even say that nobody could ever know for certain one way or the other, as agnostics do. Skeptics said instead, “I personally do not know at the moment but I am trying to find out.”
The differences between this and atheism, agnosticism, and indifference have led to confusion.
All three components of the skeptics’ statement are important. (1) They speak only for themselves and confess only their own ignorance. (2) They speak only for the present and do not claim that their ignorance is inescapable. They do not say that knowledge is impossible for themselves or for others. (3) And they always add that despite their own present ignorance they are inquiring for the truth of the matter.
They have not given up; they are optimistic —or at least hopeful —or at least undefeated —or at least unrelenting.
Right on, Dr. Suber. You’ve expressed my own skeptical attitude much better than I could. You’ve strengthened my conviction that skepticism is the wisest position we can take toward ourselves and the world. Skeptics are humble truth-seeking optimists, not grumpy nay-sayers.
I respect Steve Pavlina’s belief in the power of subjectivity. He’s convinced that “I’ll see it when I believe it” is a more accurate representation of how the cosmos operates than “I’ll believe it when I see it.”
Pavlina is trying to use the power of intention to manifest a million dollars for each person taking part in the experiment. I wish them luck. So far the participants have subjectively estimated that, on average, an additional $592 has come each person’s way. Not bad. Also, not a million dollars.
On the whole, the observable universe seems to be tilted much more in the direction of objectivity than subjectivity. The dependability and universality of the laws of nature testify to that conclusion. Humans can think and believe what they want. That’s the special blessing (and curse) of Homo sapiens.
However, for the time being my personal opinion is that truth is what it is, not what we may want it to be. I may very well end up changing my mind, because that’s what skeptics frequently do. Skepticism is at the other end of the philosophical spectrum from dogmatism, which suits me just fine.
I’ll end with another quote from Suber that resonates with my skeptical soul (see continuation to this post).
6