{"id":3695,"date":"2015-12-30T23:14:05","date_gmt":"2015-12-31T05:14:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/?p=3695"},"modified":"2015-12-31T11:01:02","modified_gmt":"2015-12-31T17:01:02","slug":"three-kinds-skeptic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/2015\/12\/30\/three-kinds-skeptic\/","title":{"rendered":"Three Kinds of “Skeptic”"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you’re relatively new to the skeptic movement, you may be confused by the various ways in which the word skeptic<\/em> is used. If you’re a veteran of movement skepticism (Armchair and Ardent, I’m looking at you guys) then you\u00a0may be frustrated to the point of distraction by the various ways in which the word skeptic<\/em> is used. I cannot hope to help those in the latter category, but for those in the former, I’d like to offer\u00a0a few thoughts on\u00a0what I would\u00a0consider the three most helpful usages of the term.<\/p>\n

The Dictionary Skeptic<\/h3>\n

By \u201cdictionary skeptic\u201d I mean whatever concept native speakers of English intend to convey most\u00a0of the time they invoke the word \u201cskeptic\u201d in everyday speech.<\/p>\n

This meaning has evolved significantly over time, as you can see by comparing Webster’s\u00a0reportive definitions\u00a0from 1828<\/a>, 1913<\/a>, and today<\/a>. These days the term has drifted away from its roots in religion and philosophy to denote any person who questions or doubts any particular idea. One may be a skeptic<\/em> of perfectly well-grounded ideas such as the efficacy of vaccination<\/a>, the reality of climate change<\/a>, and the role of HIV in causing AIDS<\/a>. I know this hurts the ears of many self-identified skeptical activists to hear the word used in this way, but we are not nearly so numerous as to simply change English usage\u00a0in our favor. I remain fairly skeptical as to whether that sort of linguistic prescriptivism\u00a0would\u00a0even be a good idea in general, though I personally prefer to call someone a science denialist<\/i> whenever they refuse to accept that which has been strongly and repeatedly validated.<\/p>\n

The Scientific Skeptic<\/h3>\n

Ever since the rise of organized skepticism<\/a> around the mid-70\u2019s, we\u2019ve had a relatively narrowly focused idea of what it means to do scientific skepticism<\/a>. Typically, the idea is to focus on empirically testable claims, especially the sort of extraordinary claims put forward by hucksters with something to sell, as well as spiritual- and conspiracy-minded folk who believe they are in on some great secret about how the world really works. Anti-vax activists<\/a>, breatharians<\/a>, cryptozoologists<\/a>, dowsers<\/a>, essential oils<\/a>, faith healers<\/a>, ghost hunters<\/a>, and homeopaths<\/a> all make testable claims about phenomena which we ought to be able to observe and measure in the real world. The role of the scientific skeptic is to rigorously test these claims and report to the public about what (not) to believe, based on the outcome of this testing.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The above image was originally created by Tim Farley for a blog post entitled My Skeptic Elevator Pitch<\/a>,which has everything to do with what we know as organized skepticism, and nothing to do with asking anyone out for coffee. It is not intended to be “a full and accurate description” of all that\u00a0scientific skeptics strive to do, but rather a quick and dirty visualization of our core mission. Arguably, the focus on citizens as consumers is overly narrow, since we want to protect people from anti-scientific ideas and methodologies even in the rare case that they are being given away for free. Then again, there are always opportunity costs to be considered. Foregoing science-based methods in favor of faith-based woo can impose costs up to and including a reduced lifespan. Bearing this in mind, I would slightly tweak Farley\u2019s pitch when making my own: \u201cSkeptics help people learn from science how to avoid spending time and effort on products, services, and ideas which do not work.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Thoroughgoing Skeptic<\/h3>\n

Whereas the Dictionary Skeptic may\u00a0doubt anything whatsoever<\/em>\u00a0and the Scientific Skeptic confines her\u00a0skeptical inquiry to claims which can be empirically tested, the Thoroughgoing Skeptic avoids both the willy-nilliness of the former approach and the strict empiricism of the latter. Her skepticism is not focused on\u00a0well-established\u00a0claims (the potential\u00a0downfall\u00a0of\u00a0the Dictionary Skeptic) nor is it limited to\u00a0the sort of claims which\u00a0may be tested under controlled conditions (as with\u00a0Scientific Skeptic). Instead, the Thoroughgoing Skeptic\u00a0strives to apportion each and every belief to the relevant\u00a0available evidence, even when that evidence is not the sort of evidence that would appear in scientific journals. If you ask a Thoroughgoing Skeptic whether any immaterial minds (gods, souls, spirits, ancestors) exist, she will be able to tell you why she is skeptical, even though it is a not a question into\u00a0which scientific inquiry has seriously\u00a0delved. If you ask a\u00a0Thoroughgoing Skeptic whether Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, she would be able to say which parts of the Christian mythology are historically plausible, even though there is no way to reliably replicate the conditions of first century Roman Jud\u00e6a.\u00a0If you ask a\u00a0Thoroughgoing Skeptic whether Reformed Epistemology or the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is a good way to approach reality, she will try to\u00a0give a well-reasoned\u00a0answer even though there is probably no way to set up a Million Dollar Challenge<\/a> to test it out.<\/p>\n

I would argue (without\u00a0consulting the advisory board on this) that the term “Skeptic” in “Skeptic Ink” probably invokes\u00a0this last usage, since the\u00a0network as a whole often takes on issues outside the remit of traditional scientific skepticism in at least two or\u00a0three\u00a0of\u00a0our five canonical categories, which are skepticism, science, philosophy, atheism, and secularism. I would also argue that this approach is\u00a0probably for the best, but you are welcome to doubt this conclusion, my skeptical friend.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you’re relatively new to the skeptic movement, you may be confused by the various ways in which the word…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":3308,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3695","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-skepticism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3695","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3695"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3695\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3706,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3695\/revisions\/3706"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3308"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3695"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3695"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3695"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}