“What differentiates skeptics from non-skeptics?” or “What does it mean to be a skeptic” are questions that I think equally well sum up an interesting conversation I had on Twitter today with Daniel Loxton and Jim Lippard, with a valuable interjection by Liz Ditz.
Our conversation arose out of a much broader discussion on Objectivism and Skepticism. Daniel Loxton sees skepticism as a method of inquiry coupled with a specialized body of knowledge. I don’t think he’s wrong, but I think it goes further than this. I believe that what defines skepticism is not the scientific method or critical thinking, nor the subject matter which historically has been concerned with pseudoscience and the paranormal. Rather I think what truly defines the nature of skepticism and the skeptic is a moral position regarding veridical truth.
In short, I think most people are not so concerned with objective reality. That doesn’t mean they’re fabulists or idiots, but rather take a pragmatic approach to the “truth” which may or may not resemble objective truth. They do “what works for them” and believe “what seems right”. They can usually tell a snake oil peddler from a physician and don’t generally believe in ghosts or UFOs, at least not very strongly. They know “what’s real” but aren’t moved to strong words or action when they see homeopathic remedies for sale at their corner drugstore. And, after all, “science doesn’t know everything, right?” so what have they got to lose by trying it? $15.95? A lot cheaper than seeing their doctor!
Scientists, on the other hand, in the course of their work, are very much concerned with getting as close to the veridical as possible. Yet many scientists do not consider themselves skeptics and many (most?) skeptics are not scientists by trade. While both science and skepticism do share similar approaches to separating the factual from the nonfactual, overall science is not skepticism and vice versa. I think both scientists and skeptics would agree on that statement. Why? What’s the difference.
I think what truly differentiates the skeptic from everyone else are a set of values and ethics that comprise a moralistic worldview. We value objective truth highly and see harm resulting when that objective truth is distorted or lied about. As such we’ve made it a priority to learn those critical thinking tools, and acquaint ourselves with the claims that have been made before. Further we are moved to seek out instances in the world around us where the truth is being mishandled or abused and act to correct what we see as a wrong. We also seek to educate other people on how they can develop the critical thinking skills so they can avoid being taken in by irrational claims too.
But above all else, we feel a sense of moral outrage when we encounter these types of situations. We have come to associate critical thinking and knowledge as being inherently good and thus moral. Any attempt to try to deceive or even just bullshit people about objective reality is immoral. In short, I think modern skepticism (as opposed to philosophical skepticism) is a moral position.
Well, that’s the way I see it. Daniel Loxton and Jim Lippard disagree to varying degrees. I still think I’m right, but I don’t think any disagreements we have are particularly consequential because we’re each coming at this from different perspectives. Dan, I think, has a very practical perspective while Jim approaches the matter from a more formalized, philosophical one. I tend to look at the behavior of people who call themselves skeptics and base my inferences on what they say and do. As I said, I don’t think Dan’s wrong. I just don’t think he goes far enough. But maybe I go too far. I’ll let you read the whole conversation and decide for yourselves. Let me know what you think in comments.
Daniel_Loxton: Skeptics have to decide if skepticism is just a footnote to humanism, or reheated objectivism—or something distinct and valuable.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton I think skepticism is all about practical morality. We highly value veridical truth and see lies and distortions as immoral.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton The practical part is that we learn how to apply the scientific method/critical thinking to our everyday lives.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton We learn how to get as close to the veridical truth as possible while defending against those who wish to corrupt it.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton In other words, skepticism isn’t about debunking ghosts or bigfoot but a method for putting into practice that which we value.
Daniel_Loxton: @neuralgourmet I’d argue that morality is outside of skepticism. I’m *motivated* to pursue skeptical activism because of my humanist ethics…
Daniel_Loxton: @neuralgourmet …but skepticism is just a tool kit & body of knowledge. What to do with those tools and facts is a different question.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton Yep, but many people have those tools and knowledge and aren’t or don’t consider themselves skeptics. What’s the difference?
Daniel_Loxton: @neuralgourmet The body of knowledge is pretty specialized, really.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton I think the difference lies in what we value. Skeptics value objective truth moreso than others…
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton …and as such see skepticism as a moral position.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton How so?
Daniel_Loxton: @neuralgourmet Skepticism contains decades of detailed expert knowledge and investigation—a specialized body of literature, like any field.
lippard: @Daniel_Loxton @neuralgourmet Morality is distinct from skepticism, but ethics is important to organized skepticism and to skeptics.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton Do you mean just the decades of investigation into paranormal claims or do you mean the wider field…
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton …including psychology, neuroscience, biology, physics, etc. as it pertains to human perception and cognition?
neuralgourmet: @lippard @Daniel_Loxton I’m not so sure. We may be using different senses of the word ‘morality’ here.
Daniel_Loxton: @neuralgourmet Skepticism is interdisciplinary: it combines working knowledge of several fields with unique knowledge of paranormal history.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton Ah. That’s where I take a different approach than you. Skepticism shouldn’t pertain only to the paranormal and pseudoscience.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton Although I know historically that has been it’s raison d’etre and you favor a back-to-basics approach.
Daniel_Loxton: @neuralgourmet Skepticism is amoral in the same sense as history or chemistry—but it relies on ethical ideals re: truth and knowledge.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton I agree, but I think the difference between skeptics and nonskeptics is often that skeptics value objective truth more.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton When someone makes a “What’s the harm?” argument they’re really stating that the objective truth doesn’t matter so much.
lippard: @Daniel_Loxton BTW, I don’t think organized skepticism has its roots in academia. CSICOP came out of the AHA + RSEP–humanists & magicians.
lippard: @Daniel_Loxton Of the founders, Kurtz was an academic but non-scientist, only Hyman and Truzzi were scientists.
Daniel_Loxton: @lippard Most of those humanists were academics, and academiia (journals, language, university affiliations) was always part of the model…
lippard: @Daniel_Loxton Early scientist opponent of Kurtz’s first skeptical activity: Carl Sagan. He refused to sign “Objections to Astrology.”
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton I guess what I’m getting at, is that skepticism is not just a toolkit and body of knowledge but also a set of values.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton And in that sense we skeptics come to see skepticism as good and thus moral.
lippard: @Daniel_Loxton The use of academic affiliations was always part of the model. That’s different from having roots in the academy.
lippard: @Daniel_Loxton Sagan’s letter to _The Humanist_ about “Objections to Astrology” is worth a read.
Daniel_Loxton: @lippard Yes, I recall Sagan’s response: that the Objections statement was essentially not scientific enough…
lizditz: .@neuralgourmet, @Daniel_Loxton: read @drval recovers from “What’s the harm?” position (A “shruggie” awakening) http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=238
neuralgourmet: @lizditz Yes! That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Dr. Val came to see skepticism as moral and CAM/quackery as immoral.
neuralgourmet: @lizditz That’s exactly where tthe difference lies I think between someone being a mere scientist or critical thinker and a skeptic.
lippard: @neuralgourmet A classic argument for the ethical nature of a skeptical position-Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief”: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_b…
Daniel_Loxton: @lippard @neuralgourmet Skeptical activism should be an ethical imperative, but we bring those values with us from outside skepticism.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton @lippard The way I see it, skepticism follows from a worldview made up of values and ethics and becomes a moral position.
neuralgourmet: @lippard Thanks for the link to the article. I’ll have to read it fully later but I did skim it and Clifford seems to be making my case.
Daniel_Loxton: @neuralgourmet I’m splitting philosophical hairs here. We agree that skepticism is morally important work.
lippard: @neuralgourmet Skepticism can be implied by worldviews and by pragmatic and ethical reasons, but the entailment doesn’t go the other way.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton I tend to think about things more from a behavioral perspective than a philosophical one. I think that might be our problem.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton Our point of disagreement I mean. In general I agree with almost everything you say.
lippard: @neuralgourmet The classic counter-argument to Clifford is William James’ “The Will to Believe.” I think Clifford has the better argument.
neuralgourmet: @lippard Do you think you can get to skepticism as recognized by most TAM participants any other way other than through ethics and morals?
lippard: @neuralgourmet There’s a good discussion in Simon Blackburn’s wonderful book, _Truth: A Guide_.
neuralgourmet: @lippard Because like I said to both @lizditz and @Daniel_Loxton, I don’t think the “toolkit” or body of knowledge are sufficient.
neuralgourmet: @lippard Thanks again. I haven’t read much William James. Blackburn’s book is on my (seemingly infinitely long) to-read list.
lippard: @neuralgourmet I’m not entirely sure what the consensus view on skepticism of TAM participants is…
lizditz: Agree with @neuralgourmet “Skepticism follows from a worldview made up of values and ethics and becomes a moral position.”
neuralgourmet: @lippard I was using TAM participants (of which I wasn’t) just as a placeholder for something we all seem to recognize but don’t have a def.
lippard: @neuralgourmet … but I think epistemology plays a bigger role than ethics. There’s an “optimistic meta-induction” about science.
lippard: @neuralgourmet That contrasts with Putnam and Laudan’s pessimistic meta-induction arguments against scientific realism.
neuralgourmet: @lippard My real question is whether you think the critical toolkit and body of knowledge are necessary and sufficient?
neuralgourmet: @lippard I think the toolkit and body of knowledge are merely necessary.
lippard: @neuralgourmet I’m re-reading past tweets to make sure I understand the question and definitions of “toolkit” and “body of knowledge.”
lippard: Can you offer a brief description of what you mean by “toolkit” and “body of knowledge”?
neuralgourmet: @lippard “Toolkit” = critical thinking skills/scientific method, “body of knowledge” = historical claims and investigations
lippard: And is the question, does having/knowing/using those entail that you’re engaging in skepticism or are a skeptic?
Daniel_Loxton: @neuralgourmet The toolkit and body of knowledge are enough for skepticism as an academic pursuit. For activism, you need an ethical engine.
lippard: @Daniel_Loxton That sounds right to me. I’d add that pragmatic grounds give a strong case for exercising personal skepticism.
neuralgourmet: @Daniel_Loxton But if one just uses the “toolkit” and knowledge as an academic doesn’t that make them just an academic and not a skeptic?
lippard: @neuralgourmet BTW, talk of “scientific method” is often misleading, since there doesn’t seem to be a common scientific method in practice.
lippard: @neuralgourmet There are many methods & practices that are distinct, institutionally endorsed w/in a field, & continually evolving.
neuralgourmet: @lippard I agree. Scientific method is a vague concept. Usually I mean something like “systematic method of critical inquiry”.
neuralgourmet: @lippard And of course, even that statement requires a lot of unpacking.
neuralgourmet: @lippard Nor do I mean to equate scientific method w/ critical thinking. They’re related, but not identical.
lippard: @neuralgourmet Totally agree that critical thinking is distinct from science, but related. Just as math is distinct but related.
Note: Twitter is by no means an ideal place to have an intellectual conversation. In many ways it’s quite antithetical to the process. In any case, I’ve tried to reconstruct the conversation verbatim via Twitter’s search function and no real editing has been done. If I or Twitter have missed an important point along the way I apologize. This method is a bit imperfect. It’d be nice if Tweetdeck allowed us to export tweets from a particular column. I also included an aside between Jim and Dan on the makeup of the professions of the founders of the modern skeptical movement as I thought it was at least tangentially relevant. Also, I very much agree with Dan’s statement that started this conversation off. Skepticism is at a crossroads with many of the people influential at its founding either passing on, retiring or just passing the baton. We’re at a time of change where it’s up to us to figure out what’s important and what the future holds.
Dear Liberal Carnivalers,
