RSS
Home
What is skepticism? - and a few other questions
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Not such a simple question as it turns out. I knew I was in trouble when I saw that the first definition given for it in my dictionary read, “The doctrines of the ancient Greek Skeptics.” Sheesh! I wasn’t looking for a history lesson; just a simple meaning for a common word. How did this get to be definition #1 anyway? I moved on to definition #2: “The philosophical doctrine that the truth of all knowledge must always be in question and that inquiry must be a process of doubting.” OK, better. Recalling comedy’s Rule of Three, I kept reading. Definition #3: “Skeptical or doubting attitude or state of mind.”
I had to close the book at that point. My Inner Academic could not abide the use of the word “skeptical” as part of a definition of “skepticism.” That sort of self-referential definition strikes me as circular logic. It was time to pursue other avenues of information.
The best published answer came to me courtesy of the folks at Skeptic Magazine. In the opening pages of every issue, a four-paragraph answer is given to the question, “What is a Skeptic?” You can read a slightly edited version of it by clicking here, which will take you to a page on the Skeptic website. My favorite part of it is the closing – a neatly inverted paraphrase of Rene Descartes: “Sum Ergo Cogito — I Am Therefore I Think.”
I began to recognize the need to address this question shortly after I was christened as the Chicago Skepticism Examiner. A friend of mine reacted to the news by asking, “So could you write something to debunk all this global warming nonsense?” He regards the notion of global warming as nothing more than a combination of bad science and outright deceit.
I carefully considered my phrasing before I replied, “Skepticism is more about a way of looking at the world rather than specific subject matter, so any topic, including global warming, is certainly fair game for skeptical analysis.” My friend seemed satisfied, so we moved on to more mundane points of conversation.
For me, the question very quickly shifted from defining skepticism to defining my approach to writing about it. I began by looking at what was already out there, from magazines such as Skeptic, Skeptical Inquirer, and Free Inquiry, to existing web sites and blogs. My answers came from realizing what I did not want this column to be. I didn’t want it to simply be “Skeptic Lite;” that is, a bite-sized blog of topics and styles already defined by the existing literature. If that was to be my approach, I reasoned, there would be no particular motivation for anyone to seek out my writing over anyone else’s. Moreover, I would simply be bored if I were making no attempt to bring something distinctive onto the scene.
I determined, then, that I would try to cover a lot of ground from column to column. At times, I’ve written about traditional skeptical topics, e.g., astrology, the Shroud of Turin, the Loch Ness Monster; but I’ve also delved into topics rarely discussed in conventional skeptical literature, e.g., baseball, the origin of Chicago’s moniker “The Windy City”, and even Banana Nut Cheerios.
Whatever the topic, I’ve tried to craft my pieces as a combination of reporting and opinion. It is on this point that a couple of people have questioned my approach. They have wondered how I can justify the insertion of so much opinion into a journal that broadly implies a quest for objective knowledge. It’s a fair question, and I hope I have a fair answer:
To begin with, I do not present myself as The Primary Source for skeptical thought. My hope is that a reader might ignite the spark of an idea from something I have written and be moved to seek out other sources of knowledge. More importantly, I hope they will think for themselves and come up with their own answers – and even better questions. The other part of my answer has to do with defining myself. Before I am a skeptic, a pescetarian, or a Red Wings fan, I am a human being. Anthropological evidence suggests that we are not hard-wired for objectivity. The ability to make hard, fast decisions, even if they are not perfectly correct, is a necessary component for survival in a harsh environment. So to me, the process of being human is a balancing act, with the judgmental and irrational instincts of our race needing to find harmony with the urge to find that which is true. When I put it that way, I feel a distinct kinship with my religious neighbors. While our respective beliefs may diverge dramatically, I want to find the basic questions that we share and use those as a foundation for tolerance and growth. The notion that one side of my nature might utterly defeat or subjugate the other strikes me as an undesirable, and perhaps impossible, goal (though of course, I could be wrong). The alternative, then, is to see what the different parts of my nature have to teach me; to try being as conscious of these factors as I can so that I may not be blinded by the dominance of a single perspective.
I would say that my persona in this journal vacillates between two archetypes: At one end, we have the ascetic monk of skepticism, consumed by the quest for self-purification. At the other end, we have the Shakespearean clown, who flails and prates much that seems silly and inconsequential, but who may on occasion speak the simple truth as he entertains his audience. Most often, I’m somewhere between the two. If a reader wants to hitch a ride on my brain for a while as it wanders, probes, and tickles, I am pleased with the company, so thanks for coming along!
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
