What is a sceptic? No, seriously. I have no idea. From what I understand, a sceptic is somebody who doesn't take something at face value, someone who is able to think critically, and someone who isn't afraid to challenge ideas. This all sounds wonderful, but wouldn't this make everybody a sceptic? After all, everyone at some point is sceptical about something, and we can’t all be sceptics otherwise they'd be no point in having a word for it.
Surely, scepticism should be relative. After all, we can be sceptical of some things, and not others. So, when someone says they are sceptical, then they should be able to qualify specifically what it is they are sceptical of. However, that can't be right, as many people use the term categorically: "I am a sceptic" they say, proudly; crowning themselves with this title to elevate themselves above others and relish their superior ability to think critically.
Personally, I'm not sure how I stack up. I'm sceptical of many things (homoeopathy, astrology, Katie Hopkins), I'm sceptical of new research I cite and peer-review, and I'm sceptical of certain political agendas too. On the other hand, there are lots of things I'm quite open-minded about; like philosophy and religion. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and give ideas a chance before writing them off. But is that enough? Does that still make me “a sceptic”? Am I allowed to join the club?
No. I think, if we’re being honest, a big part of being “a sceptic” is being critical of the supernatural and adopting a purely naturalist philosophy. However, this opens up a whole new can of worms. What if you're sceptical about the paranormal but not religion? What if you’re sceptical about certain aspects of religion but not others? What if you're sceptical of atheism, or sceptics? What do we call that? Super-scepticism? Insception?
The term “sceptic” has multiple definitions; ranging from someone who has general reservations about certain things to someone who holds a very specific philosophical opinion. My issue with branding oneself as “a sceptic” is that it collapses these definitions to form one, apparently, elitist position safe from criticism. Collapsing these defections allows people to use the concept of having reservations about things (something everybody has) as a surrogate for a very specific philosophical belief (something only specific people have) and this doesn't seem right somehow.
Using the term “sceptic” also forces a false dichotomy on people and differentiates, supposedly, between intelligent people that question everything and idiots that accept anything anybody tells them. This plainly isn't fair. Some people may just not be comfortable calling themselves “a sceptic” as they may think that adopting a "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy for everything branches away from being a sceptic and towards being a jerk, or they may just not agree with the specific philosophical views that are attached with being “a sceptic”. Either way, people that don’t call themselves “a sceptic” should be no less learned than people that do.
So, the message of this blog is simple: When someone informs you that they are a sceptic, feel free to be a bit sceptical.
Surely, scepticism should be relative. After all, we can be sceptical of some things, and not others. So, when someone says they are sceptical, then they should be able to qualify specifically what it is they are sceptical of. However, that can't be right, as many people use the term categorically: "I am a sceptic" they say, proudly; crowning themselves with this title to elevate themselves above others and relish their superior ability to think critically.
 |
| Sceptical cat is sceptcial. (Image credit: https://pixabay.com/) |
Personally, I'm not sure how I stack up. I'm sceptical of many things (homoeopathy, astrology, Katie Hopkins), I'm sceptical of new research I cite and peer-review, and I'm sceptical of certain political agendas too. On the other hand, there are lots of things I'm quite open-minded about; like philosophy and religion. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and give ideas a chance before writing them off. But is that enough? Does that still make me “a sceptic”? Am I allowed to join the club?
No. I think, if we’re being honest, a big part of being “a sceptic” is being critical of the supernatural and adopting a purely naturalist philosophy. However, this opens up a whole new can of worms. What if you're sceptical about the paranormal but not religion? What if you’re sceptical about certain aspects of religion but not others? What if you're sceptical of atheism, or sceptics? What do we call that? Super-scepticism? Insception?
The term “sceptic” has multiple definitions; ranging from someone who has general reservations about certain things to someone who holds a very specific philosophical opinion. My issue with branding oneself as “a sceptic” is that it collapses these definitions to form one, apparently, elitist position safe from criticism. Collapsing these defections allows people to use the concept of having reservations about things (something everybody has) as a surrogate for a very specific philosophical belief (something only specific people have) and this doesn't seem right somehow.
Using the term “sceptic” also forces a false dichotomy on people and differentiates, supposedly, between intelligent people that question everything and idiots that accept anything anybody tells them. This plainly isn't fair. Some people may just not be comfortable calling themselves “a sceptic” as they may think that adopting a "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy for everything branches away from being a sceptic and towards being a jerk, or they may just not agree with the specific philosophical views that are attached with being “a sceptic”. Either way, people that don’t call themselves “a sceptic” should be no less learned than people that do.
So, the message of this blog is simple: When someone informs you that they are a sceptic, feel free to be a bit sceptical.
Comments
Post a Comment