What is a skeptic?

[Stranger]

Skepticism is a mindset. People can be skeptical of anything. From philosophical theories, to science, to economics, to political affairs, to their parents love, to the value of life....etc.

Its not about evidence...its about perception and attitude.

I refer you again to the various definitions I have posted. In particular this one:-

Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.

https://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php

Which is probably the sense in which most people who self-identify as sceptical would mean. You can gibber on about other and more general meanings if you want, but it has little to relevance to the question in the OP. Ironically your continued petulance about the meaning is more an adolescent trait than scepticism.

About evidence.... Evidence has always been available for gravity in terms of falling objects. Why didn't anyone see it as evidence for gravity till Newton did?! Similarly with a host of other observations.....

'Evidence' is about connecting certain observations to certain phenomena/certain concepts. If that connection is established...it becomes evidence...otherwise, it can be in front of your nose all the time and still not be perceived as evidence for anything.

Now you seem to be on about evidence in the scientific sense. To take your example, evidence has always been available that things fall to the ground on Earth, in the form of multiple everyday experiences.

Before anybody invented a theory of gravity, it was still evidence but evidence of a phenomena that nobody had explained. When the theory came along, much more precise evidence was needed in order to confirm that the theory corresponded exactly to the evidence.

Many people see plenty of evidence for a God...why can't you? Because you can't and you also will not. You might simply call them all gullible fools...and that is that!  They will call you an ignorant  fool and.... that is that!

It has nothing to do with being unwilling - nobody has provided any objective evidence or sound arguments. That's quite apart from the word referring to many, many different and mutually exclusive ideas.

Where is this evidence of which you speak?

Can you provide evidence of light to a born blind person?

Of course. Compare: do you think there is evidence for radio waves, gamma rays, electrons...?

[Shaker]

Ironically your continued petulance about the meaning is more an adolescent trait than scepticism.

Precisely and exactly what I was already thinking, SKoS.

[Sriram]

Yes #5 and #11 demonstrate your lack of understanding.  Scepticism is not a teenage mindset, it is more a life skill and a form of mental discipline that requires a certain depth of experience and maturity not available during childhood

I am not saying that anyone who is skeptical of anything is like a teenager. I am only saying that skepticism surfaces during adolescence to allow for individuality and self development. It is a characteristic trait during teenage.

However, as we mature into adults we should develop the ability to dispassionately choose where and when we should be skeptical and where we should not be. Reason and logic have their limits.

Some people may take pride in being 'skeptics'.......but habitual skeptics are no different from habitual believers.  Their very allegiance to skepticism shows their bias and lack of balance. 

[Shaker]

Some people may take pride in being 'skeptics'.......but habitual skeptics are no different from habitual believers. Their very allegiance to skepticism shows their bias and lack of balance.

Spot the one who doesn't know what scepticism means

[Sriram]

Spot the one who doesn't know what scepticism means

LOL! You have just taken over from where Prof W left off! 

[Bubbles]

A skeptic IMO is just someone who has doubts about things that are claimed by others.

[Stranger]

Reason and logic have their limits.

Yes, but they are the best tools for sifting out the reasonable and logical from the unreasonable and illogical.

Some people may take pride in being 'skeptics'.......but habitual skeptics are no different from habitual believers.  Their very allegiance to skepticism shows their bias and lack of balance.

I refer you again to the definition of scepticism that is relevant to this thread (which is about people who self-identify as sceptics):-

Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.

https://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php

[Sriram]

Yes, but they are the best tools for sifting out the reasonable and logical from the unreasonable and illogical.

I refer you again to the definition of scepticism that is relevant to this thread (which is about people who self-identify as sceptics):-

Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.

https://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php

Yes....I understand. But you may like to think that 'applying reason' is something people do uniformly and with uniform control over their biases and pet prejudices. That is not so.

Everyone is not a sage with a perfect and dispassionate perception of the world, completely free of all emotional and cultural biases.

Reason and logic are not super powers. They are common abilities with severe limitations.  Reason and logic can and do bend to serve our personal emotional requirements.

They have a cultural element.... and what may appear perfectly logical and reasonable at one point of time can appear completely illogical and unreasonable at another point of time.

It is not skepticism that we should cultivate but.... Wisdom!

[Shaker]

But you may like to think that 'applying reason' is something people do uniformly and with uniform control over their biases and pet prejudices. That is not so ... Everyone is not a sage with a perfect and dispassionate perception of the world, completely free of all emotional and cultural biases.

Part of the whole point of scepticism is firstly to be aware of such biases and then to counter or override them as far as is humanly possible. This is why trained and organised scepticism such as you find in the scientific method has elements such as anonymous peer review and the like.

Reason and logic are not super powers. They are common abilities

Sadly not that common. Take any day's worth of posting here as an example.

Naming no names ...

[Stranger]

Yes....I understand. But you may like to think that 'applying reason' is something people do uniformly and with uniform control over their biases and pet prejudices. That is not so.

Indeed, it is not something people do uniformly, which is why we need to encourage scepticism.

Everyone is not a sage with a perfect and dispassionate perception of the world, completely free of all emotional and cultural biases.

No, they are not.

Reason and logic are not super powers.

No, they are skills that (most) people can learn.

They are common abilities with severe limitations.  Reason and logic can and do bend to serve our personal emotional requirements.

No, they don't. Reason and logic cannot bend. People can misapply them and can apply them inconsistently because of emotion or other bias. Another good reason to encourage scepticism.

They have a cultural element.... and what may appear perfectly logical and reasonable at one point of time can appear completely illogical and unreasonable at another point of time.

Again, that isn't reason and logic having a cultural element, it's people having a cultural element that can blind them to the logical and reasonable.

It is not skepticism that we should cultivate but.... Wisdom!

All the above suggest that we need to encourage people to detach themselves, as much as possible, from cultural and emotional connections when trying to apply reason and logic.

Reason and logic are not all of life, be when trying to assess claims of objective truth, matters of fact and logical arguments, they are the only show in town - which is, again, why we need to encourage scepticism.

I don't know what you mean by "wisdom" but it sounds suspiciously like an excuse to introduce emotion, culture and superstition into areas that should be dealt with by logic and reason...

[Sriram]

Humans have reason and logic and humans also have cultural and emotional influences. Because of this, their reason and logic also get influenced.  As simple as that.

There is no such thing as pure reason and logic unless one is a robot.....maybe not even then.

You are suspicious of 'wisdom' because of your God phobia. Most of you are petrified of God being forced down your throat. You are always watching your back. 

[Shaker]

Those mind-reading lessons: ask for your money back.

[Stranger]

Humans have reason and logic and humans also have cultural and emotional influences. Because of this, their reason and logic also get influenced.  As simple as that.

What happens is that people tend make mistakes. Reason and logic are not applied perfectly because of those influences.

There is no such thing as pure reason and logic unless one is a robot.....maybe not even then.

And....? Are you suggesting that because we can't attain perfection, we should stop trying? Perhaps, because we can't do medicine perfectly, we should stop training doctors? Because nobody can be a perfect musician, nobody should even try?

When it comes to matters of objective truth, reason and logic are the correct tools - lack of perfection doesn't change that. Scepticism is the skill we should encourage to avoid the illogical, unreasonable and unevidenced being accepted as objective truth. It will never be perfect, but that's true of any skill.

You are suspicious of 'wisdom' because of your God phobia. Most of you are petrified of God being forced down your throat. You are always watching your back. 

As Shaker said...

[ippy]

The clearest definition would seem to be the first of the three listed below from the Oxford Dictionary:
Surprisingly enough, the definition is the same whether you look up the British or American spelling   

Note the British English spelling, JA.   

That also suggests that religious people are not less sceptical than non-religious people, since - in the same way that it is human to err - it is human to question.

It' just that religious people are more gullible.

ippy

[torridon]

Humans have reason and logic and humans also have cultural and emotional influences. Because of this, their reason and logic also get influenced.  As simple as that.

There is no such thing as pure reason and logic unless one is a robot.....maybe not even then.

That is why we need scepticism.  Most people don't apply logic so much as follow their desires, habits, prejudices and beliefs. Persons by and large are unfaithful witnesses to truth, that is why to get at the underlying truth we need to remove the personal, remove the subjective, in order to approach the objective.  Science is the formalised application of such disciplines to empiral investigation.

[Sriram]

That is why we need scepticism.  Most people don't apply logic so much as follow their desires, habits, prejudices and beliefs. Persons by and large are unfaithful witnesses to truth, that is why to get at the underlying truth we need to remove the personal, remove the subjective, in order to approach the objective.  Science is the formalised application of such disciplines to empiral investigation.

What you and others need to understand is that Reason & Logic are one part of being human while emotional responses are another part. Neither is wrong or right by itself.

In stage 1, we apply more of the emotional part and during adolescence we apply more of the Reason & logic.  This is what you call skepticism.

My point is that both reason and emotion (head and heart, left brain and right brain) need to be applied equally. This happens after maturity in some people. This is what brings a balance....which we Hindus call... Jnana (Wisdom).   

Most people however, never reach this balance and remain skewed in one direction or the other all their life.

Your impression that applying logic and reason in itself makes something more accurate and 'real' is not correct. Only when it is balanced with emotion and 'feelings' does it become more 'real'.

[Sriram]

SKS....you still haven't told me how you could convince a stubborn born blind man about the existence of light!! 

[Leonard James]

SKS....you still haven't told me how you could convince a stubborn born blind man about the existence of light!!

No that difficult! Let him tie you to the wall of a room full of obstacles, and then tell him to cross the room with his stick, warning him every time he approaches an obstacle. He can then ascertain that you are correct every time.

[Sriram]

No that difficult! Let him tie you to the wall of a room full of obstacles, and then tell him to cross the room with his stick, warning him every time he approaches an obstacle. He can then ascertain that you are correct every time.

IF the blind person is as skeptical as you people are....he will not believe the person. He will first ask how does he know it is because of 'light' and not because of some other phenomenon or some other method used by the other person.  What the heck is 'light' anyway?!

Define it and show evidence of how it can exist everywhere and make people 'see' (whatever that is!  ) without itself being felt or heard or sensed in any way. Rubbish!

[torridon]

What you and others need to understand is that Reason & Logic are one part of being human while emotional responses are another part. Neither is wrong or right by itself.

In stage 1, we apply more of the emotional part and during adolescence we apply more of the Reason & logic.  This is what you call skepticism.

My point is that both reason and emotion (head and heart, left brain and right brain) need to be applied equally. This happens after maturity in some people. This is what brings a balance....which we Hindus call... Jnana (Wisdom).   

Most people however, never reach this balance and remain skewed in one direction or the other all their life.

Your impression that applying logic and reason in itself makes something more accurate and 'real' is not correct. Only when it is balanced with emotion and 'feelings' does it become more 'real'.

I think this is confusing values with epistemic truth.  Something is either true or it is not true, irrespective of my emotions or feelings on the matter, so to get to the underlying truth we often have to look past our agendas and biases.  The wider world out there cares not for our feelings on the matter so we have to discount our feelings.  To balance reason with feelings, as you say, might be a broad formula for finding personal contentment in a complex world but feelings are the enemy of reason for the searcher after epistemic truth and any compromise between the two is essentially a fudge, a fudge that gives us 'true for me'.

[torridon]

SKS....you still haven't told me how you could convince a stubborn born blind man about the existence of light!!

You confuse scepticism with stubborness.  They are not synonyms.  We cannot see dark matter; we cannot detect dark matter directly, but we do not go around claiming it does not exist.

[Leonard James]

IF the blind person is as skeptical as you people are....he will not believe the person. He will first ask how does he know it is because of 'light' and not because of some other phenomenon or some other method used by the other person.  What the heck is 'light' anyway?!

Define it and show evidence of how it can exist everywhere and make people 'see' (whatever that is!  ) without itself being felt or heard or sensed in any way. Rubbish!

No matter how sceptical he is. he has to admit that it is a faculty that he doesn't have. He has been shown unequivocally that it exists.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

IF the blind person is as skeptical as you people are....he will not believe the person. He will first ask how does he know it is because of 'light' and not because of some other phenomenon or some other method used by the other person.  What the heck is 'light' anyway?!

Define it and show evidence of how it can exist everywhere and make people 'see' (whatever that is!  ) without itself being felt or heard or sensed in any way. Rubbish!

You can certainly feel / sense the effects of light. I wouldn't recommended laying on a beach with no protection on the skin. Presumably blind people can still feel the effects of a cloud passing across the sun on a hot day when sitting in the garden.

The actual force that light exerts can also be measured.

http://www.myscience.org.uk/wire/light_can_you_feel_the_force-2016-bristol

[Stranger]

SKS....you still haven't told me how you could convince a stubborn born blind man about the existence of light!!

See

Can you provide evidence of light to a born blind person?

Of course. Compare: do you think there is evidence for radio waves, gamma rays, electrons...?

IF the blind person is as skeptical as you people are....he will not believe the person. He will first ask how does he know it is because of 'light' and not because of some other phenomenon or some other method used by the other person.  What the heck is 'light' anyway?!

Define it and show evidence of how it can exist everywhere and make people 'see' (whatever that is!  ) without itself being felt or heard or sensed in any way. Rubbish!

This is a particularly stupid argument, even by your standards. We all accept evidence of things we cannot sense directly.

Being blind doesn't make you stupid, illogical or unreasoning.

[Stranger]

My point is that both reason and emotion (head and heart, left brain and right brain) need to be applied equally. This happens after maturity in some people. This is what brings a balance....which we Hindus call... Jnana (Wisdom).

What you need to understand is reason and logic are appropriate to some questions and emotion is applicable to others. If you try to apply emotion to a question of objective fact, then you are being foolish.

Your impression that applying logic and reason in itself makes something more accurate and 'real' is not correct. Only when it is balanced with emotion and 'feelings' does it become more 'real'.

Again, if you are trying to assess if something is objectively real, then reason, logic and evidence are required - applying emotion and feelings is crass stupidity.

Trying to (for example) appreciate art, music and literature using only reason and logic is equally foolish. It's about using what is appropriate.