Healthy Skepticism

Sam26

Just how wedded should we be to a particular view point? Another way to ask the question, just how dogmatic should we be about what we believe? Even in science what's considered knowledge at one point in history, will turn out to be overturned at a future point. What would our science look like to those who are alive 1000 years from now, or 20,000 years from now? This is not to say that we can't make claims to knowledge given our current methodologies, but when you look at knowledge in the broad sense, it makes you wonder why people are so dogmatic about what they believe.

Even within my short lifetime what I thought I knew changed. I'm skeptical of any view, be it scientific or otherwise that sets itself up as the arbiter of knowledge. One of the reasons science is so attractive is that you can perform experiments and see the results, as opposed to doing a thought experiment where everything is so abstract. However, even the results of experiments don't seem to last long, that is, given a hundred years or more many of the conclusions are overturned. And if this is the way we progress, and it seems that it is, then why are we so arrogant about what we believe? Shouldn't we be more humble about our beliefs given the evidence of the past, and given what we know will inevitably change in the future. Compare what we know, to what we don't know. The gulf is so vast it makes me wonder why we are so dogmatic about science, religion, politics, and a whole array of other subjects. Obviously some areas of study are more prone to rationality, and others are more prone to irrationality, but still it seems that we need to be careful about our claims.

I'm not saying that we should all be skeptics, but that we should keep in the forefront of our minds how little we really know. To me it's like comparing a grain of sand to Mount Everest, and even that doesn't quite capture the vast difference.

Much of this has come from my own introspection, and my own shortcomings when it comes to what I think I know, but I think it has importance for all of us.

LD Saunders

It depends on whether one is a layperson or an expert in the field. As a layperson, would you drive across a bridge that 97% of structural engineers told you would collapse if you did? Most people wouldn't, but these same people often reject 97% of climate scientists. If you believe in science, and are not an expert in the field, then you have to go along with the scientific orthodox view. As a lay person you just lack the knowledge to justify a contrary opinion.

Now, this is different for subjects like physics, chemistry, math, engineering, than it is for topics like sociology, economics, and other social sciences which are not as reliable as physics, chemistry or applied mathematics. But, even then, if 97% of economists held a specific viewpoint, absent expertise in the field, you would not be justified to disagree with them.

fdrake

What's known has a funny habit of wavering about like a leaf considered under the aspect of eternity. We can bet on the falsity, in the absolute sense, of most things that are known. Something will be wrong with them, they are likely to be flawed in ways we can't even conceive of now, but perhaps they will be less wrong in some ways than their predecessors.

Under the aspect of eternity; what matters is the process that makes that knowledge coalesce into structures. Whether material or ideal, they were enabled by charitable skepticism coupled with courageous belief; embodied in the search for and application of knowledge; and retained by those willing to learn and to teach. All the rest is hard work.

Wayfarer

One thing that's forgotten in many debates about this point, is that scientific scepticism is not the same as scepticism in the philosophical sense. Well - it might be, but in practice it often isn't.

To explain - one of the origins of scepticism is said to be Pyrrho of Elis, around whom the school Pyrrhonian scepticism formed. The last of that line was probably Sextus Empiricus. Pyrrho was different from the academic sceptics and sophists, and is believed to have been influenced by Buddhism on his trip to India (actually, Gandhara, when it was part of Alexander's empire which straddled what is nowadays Afghanistan and Pakistan).

The central point of Pyrrhonian scepticism was 'suspension of judgement about what is not evident'. It was not really the claim that 'nobody knows anything', which as is well known is a self-contradictory assertion (i.e. how do we know that?) It was actually not a dogmatic philosophy. And I think that is nearer in principle to the meaning of OP - it's much more a reflection on the nature of knowledge and the idea of 'degrees of certainty'. (The SEP entry on ancient scepticism is worth reading on this topic, authored by Katja Vogt.)

The point about 'scientific scepticism' is that it typically assumes that science is indeed 'the arbiter of knowledge', that if anything is worth knowing, it can only be known by science, and that if it can't be ascertained scientifically, then it's not worth knowing. But that forgets the sense in which science is itself culturally situated and mediated. And more importantly, it forgets the 'questioning of what is taken for granted' which is very much the hallmark of early philosophy and real scientific analysis. I suspect what scientific scepticism means, really is very close to Pyrrho - suspension of judgement about what is not evident. But it is often taken to amount to the endorsement of 'the scientific worldview' which is a different thing altogether, as it often amounts to global claims about life, the Universe, and everything - quite a different thing to the spirit of scepticism.

Sam26

↪fdrake

I agree with that perspective.

Caldwell

Shouldn't we be more humble about our beliefs given the evidence of the past, and given what we know will inevitably change in the future. Compare what we know, to what we don't know. The gulf is so vast it makes me wonder why we are so dogmatic about science, religion, politics, and a whole array of other subjects. Obviously some areas of study are more prone to rationality, and others are more prone to irrationality, but still it seems that we need to be careful about our claims. — Sam26

Sorry, I find 'humility' irrelevant to being "careful about our claims". Any philosopher would tell you that being careful about making a claim has to do with being careful about becoming dogmatic about anything. A humble person can be dogmatic in belief. These two qualities aren't exclusive. Hence, a humble rationalist could very well be dogmatic by explaining that arrogance lies in rejecting reason as the ultimate test of truth.
Similarly, what good it is to say "I know nothing" to feign humility if it doesn't contribute to the vitality of philosophical questions? To end all philosophical meowing?
If you asked me, I'd say it is arrogant to say "I know nothing."

yatagarasu

↪LD Saunders

It depends on whether one is a layperson or an expert in the field. As a layperson, would you drive across a bridge that 97% of structural engineers told you would collapse if you did? Most people wouldn't, but these same people often reject 97% of climate scientists. If you believe in science, and are not an expert in the field, then you have to go along with the scientific orthodox view. As a lay person you just lack the knowledge to justify a contrary opinion. — LD Saunders

I wise I could make this statement into a billboard. lol People are always so ready to discredit experts just because it fits their narrative. On all sides. They forget the blessing specialization has been to humanities progression. Experts will make mistakes, experts are human too, skepticism is fine, but most people just go too far, without enough ability to form their own peer reviewable claims. There is just too much out there to be an expert in everything.

Sam26

↪Caldwell

I agree with your comments about humility and arrogance. One can possess these character traits whatever one believes, rational or not. I'm mainly talking about attitudes, and attitudes really have little to do with correct conclusions.

I think a tinge of skepticism might be healthy. So as I look at my world view, I'm always asking myself if I have it right, what am I missing; and I do this with much of what I believe. I'm not advocating complete skepticism or anything close, but I do think there is a healthy skepticism if balanced correctly. Although I'm not quite sure what that balance might be. It' very easy to cross the line into irrational skepticism.

Sam26

I've also been thinking about how difficult it is for people to give up a belief, especially if it's something they've been working on for a long time (mainly thinking of academics). They have so much invested in the idea that it becomes psychologically difficult to admit their conclusions are wrong. It's also true of people who have a religious world view; their friends and family have the same world view, so it becomes very difficult to break that line of thinking.

I guess much of this has to do with the psychology of belief, which I've been interested in for quite some time.

T Clark

Just how wedded should we be to a particular view point? Another way to ask the question, just how dogmatic should we be about what we believe? Even in science what's considered knowledge at one point in history, will turn out to be overturned at a future point. What would our science look like to those who are alive 1000 years from now, or 20,000 years from now? This is not to say that we can't make claims to knowledge given our current methodologies, but when you look at knowledge in the broad sense, it makes you wonder why people are so dogmatic about what they believe. — Sam26

This is something I've thought about a lot. I think it comes from the fact I'm an engineer. All the posts up to this point dance around what I see as the central point.

suspension of judgement about what is not evident — Wayfarer

Yes, almost. How about suspension of judgement about what is not evident until I have to make a real decision about something concrete in the world. People act as if truth is the point of human thought, but it's not. The only really important question is "What do I do now?" Truth is a tool to help us answer the question, but it's not enough. Unless you're alone on an island, all "What do I do now?" questions involve decision making, negotiation, politics.

And this brings us to:

It depends on whether one is a layperson or an expert in the field. As a layperson, would you drive across a bridge that 97% of structural engineers told you would collapse if you did? Most people wouldn't, but these same people often reject 97% of climate scientists. If you believe in science, and are not an expert in the field, then you have to go along with the scientific orthodox view. As a lay person you just lack the knowledge to justify a contrary opinion. — LD Saunders

When it's time to make a decision and you need reliable information to help decide, consensus of them what knows is what's needed. Scientific consensus isn't perfect. It can be wrong. But when it matters and it's time to do something, it's what we have.

To me, that's the final answer - suspension of judgement until it's time to decide, then put your money where your mouth is. Where the knowledgeable people you've decided to trust's mouths are.

gurugeorge

Just how wedded should we be to a particular view point? Another way to ask the question, just how dogmatic should we be about what we believe? — Sam26

I don't think scepticism is like a possible general stance, rather it's something you engage in based on evidence. Scepticism is a phase of inquiry that's triggered by evidence, or lack of evidence, it's not a possible permanent modality of inquiry (though it may be a psychological attitude - e.g. someone has a sceptical attitude, psychologically speaking, if they're more inclined to take second looks, check sources, dig a bit, etc.).

Most especially, dreaming up alternative logical possibilities is not scepticism, it's merely idle imagination.

One doles out belief according to the strength of the evidence, that's all there is to it. Weak evidence, counter-examples, etc., invite scepticism. But if everything's going along smoothly, scepticism has no function, it's idle, at rest.

Caldwell

I guess much of this has to do with the psychology of belief, which I've been interested in for quite some time. — Sam26

Some of the best books to read outside philosophy.

ArguingWAristotleTiff

@fdrake Your reply has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution.

Healthy Skepticism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions