Those who have read past posts may know that I particularly enjoy taking a pause and analyzing the words we use. So what does the word skeptic mean? The most simple and general definition I have found is, "one who doubts". The free online dictionary gives these two definitions:
Skeptic:
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
So, what does it mean to doubt? Doubt is simply questioning the validity of an assertion. Often this is misconstrued as claiming an assertion is invalid. This is not the case. Ideally, a skeptic withholds judgement until evidence allows him or her to accept a conclusion as likely. The individual skeptic must make the determination as to what level of probability they feel comfortable with when accepting a claim of fact. For me, it depends in many cases on the importance and circumstances of the assertion.
In any case, the necessary first step is a willingness to question any and all claims of knowledge. Notice I did not say the first step is to question any and all claims of knowledge, but rather to have a willingness to do so. This is an important difference, as it makes skepticism a practical, viable approach to knowledge. Actually questioning everything all the time would lead down a slippery slope to a solipsistic insustainable epistemology which discourages participation in what we (necessarily) accept as reality. However, being willing to question any claim is simply challenging the authoritarian nature of knowledge.
A famous quote attributed to the 19th century feminist, Lucretia Mott, is : "Truth for Authority, not Authority for Truth". The sentiment expressed in these words provide an excellent example of the skeptical mindset. Skepticism is powerful force for anti-authoritarianism. As stated previously, we have to accept certain knowledge as true for practical purposes. Sometimes that knowledge is accepted by many. Other times, only a few people accept a given piece of knowledge. What is generally common is that even accepting a position that absolute epistomological certainty can never be achieved, we generally feel more comfortable constructing our worldview around facts with the highest degrees of certainty. This is what contributes to the popularity of science. Science provides us with ideas that exhibit a high level of certainty which we then use as the foundation for our technology and culture.
However, as the amount of information that must be acquired to function as cultural complexity increases, the number of facts that must be accepted without personal or direct verification also increase. This means that we must accept certain knowledge with limited direct experience as to the fact's veracity. Keeping this in mind, consider also that as human beings we are full of paradoxical inclinations which may drive us to find one particular view more appealing personally regardless of accuracy. We are clearly the most outstanding and capable species on our planet, yet experience and knowledge has revealed us as small and fragile. We have an insatiable curiosity, yet long for certainty. This is when the authoritarian aspect of knowledge is most dangerous. Religion is the most obvious example. Religious assertions are widely accepted as true. This in itself is not any more dangerous than any other superstitious belief. However, the real threat is the assertion that it is not acceptable, in fact, is harmful to question religious assertions. One can accept assertions. One must accept a certain number of assertions. However, once you buy into the absolute validity of a piece of knowledge, you have abandoned the skeptical mindset.
...to be continued.
In any case, the necessary first step is a willingness to question any and all claims of knowledge. Notice I did not say the first step is to question any and all claims of knowledge, but rather to have a willingness to do so. This is an important difference, as it makes skepticism a practical, viable approach to knowledge. Actually questioning everything all the time would lead down a slippery slope to a solipsistic insustainable epistemology which discourages participation in what we (necessarily) accept as reality. However, being willing to question any claim is simply challenging the authoritarian nature of knowledge.
A famous quote attributed to the 19th century feminist, Lucretia Mott, is : "Truth for Authority, not Authority for Truth". The sentiment expressed in these words provide an excellent example of the skeptical mindset. Skepticism is powerful force for anti-authoritarianism. As stated previously, we have to accept certain knowledge as true for practical purposes. Sometimes that knowledge is accepted by many. Other times, only a few people accept a given piece of knowledge. What is generally common is that even accepting a position that absolute epistomological certainty can never be achieved, we generally feel more comfortable constructing our worldview around facts with the highest degrees of certainty. This is what contributes to the popularity of science. Science provides us with ideas that exhibit a high level of certainty which we then use as the foundation for our technology and culture.
However, as the amount of information that must be acquired to function as cultural complexity increases, the number of facts that must be accepted without personal or direct verification also increase. This means that we must accept certain knowledge with limited direct experience as to the fact's veracity. Keeping this in mind, consider also that as human beings we are full of paradoxical inclinations which may drive us to find one particular view more appealing personally regardless of accuracy. We are clearly the most outstanding and capable species on our planet, yet experience and knowledge has revealed us as small and fragile. We have an insatiable curiosity, yet long for certainty. This is when the authoritarian aspect of knowledge is most dangerous. Religion is the most obvious example. Religious assertions are widely accepted as true. This in itself is not any more dangerous than any other superstitious belief. However, the real threat is the assertion that it is not acceptable, in fact, is harmful to question religious assertions. One can accept assertions. One must accept a certain number of assertions. However, once you buy into the absolute validity of a piece of knowledge, you have abandoned the skeptical mindset.
...to be continued.
0 comments:
Post a Comment