From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Scientific skepticism (UK spelling, scepticism) sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a scientific, or practical, epistemological position (or paradigm) in which one does not accept the veracity of claims until solid evidence is produced.
| Table of contents |
Skeptics ideally do not rely on faith, but instead look for evidence to support claims, drawing conclusions based on available evidence. Popular topics of criticism among skeptics include dowsing, astrology, alien abductions, ESP and other psychic powers, which skeptics allege are pseudosciences. Famous people described as skeptics include James Randi, noted for debunking claims related to some of these. Many self-professed skeptics are atheists or agnostics, and have a naturalistic worldview, but Martin Gardener is an example of a committed debunker with a religious world-view.
The following is a definition of scientific skepticism from Skeptic magazine:
From a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability, Occam's Razor, and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results. A certain skepticism is part of scientific methodology; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable.
Fundamentally, skepticism is an approach to new claims where doubt is preferred to belief, given a lack of conclusive evidence. This is a personal principle -- it does not, on the surface, imply that skeptics should attempt to convert other people to their beliefs. The question is often asked: what is the danger of "magical thinking" and pseudoscience? It may be silly to believe in UFOs and psychic powers, but why not tolerate those beliefs? What harm do they do?
The Ancient Greek philosopher Plato believed that to release another person from ignorance despite their initial resistance is a great and noble thing. Modern skeptical writers address this question in a variety of ways.
James Randi, for instance, often writes on the issue of fraud. On a case by case basis, he attempts to show how some promoters of pseudoscience make money from their claims, while secretly knowing them to be false. This is generally known as a "profit motive". Critics of alternative medicine often point to bad advice given by unqualified practitioners, leading to serious injury or death. Richard Dawkins points to religion as a source of violence, and considers creationism a threat to biology.
Some people, though, who call themselves skeptics are not really skeptics, but rather "pseudo-skeptics" or, by a sneering redefinition of the term, "debunkers". Greg Taylor of Phenomena magazine sarcastically writes:
The wiki process being what it is, you may find elements of this point of view scattered throughout this article. Michael Shermer defends the term "debunker" in his January 2004 column in Scientific American:
By the principles of skepticism, the ideal case is that every individual should make their own mind up on the basis of the evidence, rather than appealing to some authority skeptical or otherwise.
Critics of skepticism are known for supporting pseudoscience, alien-related explanations of UFOs, psychic powers, and for typically favoring paranormal, if not supernatural, explanations of certain events. Often they will perceive their "revolutionary" ideas to be rejected from closed-mindedness, and often attribute any resistance to new ideas as being from scientific skeptics even if history shows us motive behind the resistance, such as rejection of Galileo's work. Skeptics themselves, however, almost always favor established science.
Critics of skepticism often point to cases where a scientific theory met a great deal of criticism before eventually being accepted. Commonly cited are Galileo's heliocentric theory; the myth that Christopher Columbus' contemporaries thought the Earth was flat; Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift, and skepticism towards rocks falling down to Earth. Thomas Jefferson himself commented: "I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven."
While continental drift was opposed by young-earth creationists who believe in a young earth in which there would not be enough time for continental drift to occur, the significant opposition came from the scientific establishment on the grounds that Wegener's proposed mechanism to explain continental drift clearly could not work, and that no alternative seemed to be at hand.
Another example of this is the oft-cited case of meteorites; while some have argued that they were not accepted because the evidence for them was not good, opposition continued long after a number of reliable reports and even after Ernst Chaldni showed that meteorites were geologically distinct from terrestrial rocks; what was apparently lacking was not evidence but a theoretical basis which made the evidence seem worthy of acceptance. These observation were not in agreement with the prevailing scientific thought. When the reasons why rocks falling from the sky was, later, proven not only logical but predictable, the question resolved itself. Critics of scientific skepticism assert that the skeptical mindset may cause difficulty harmonizing observation with established beliefs.
The arguments of critics are often coupled to the assertion that some particular present-day theory is being unduly criticised, and its proponents vilified. According to the sci.skeptic FAQ:
This, though, is a spurious relationship which really has no logical connection for those that pursue scientific progress. The statement, in reality, is "they laughed at Galileo, therefore unconventional claimants cannot be presumed wrong"
Skeptics do not hold that it is better to disbelieve a correct assertion than to believe an incorrect one. Rather, they believe that one should not firmly believe any scientific assertation until a mass of evidence accumulates in that claim's behavior. This may slow down the process of accepting claims that turn out to be factually true, but it also prevents the acceptance of uncounted numbers of claims which will turn out to be false.
On occasion, not immediately accepting a new claim can be problematic. Ignaz Semmelweis's innovations in hygiene in the 1840s were ridiculed by a skeptical medical establishment; however, Semmelweis did not help his case with his refusal to publish his own data on the matter until years later. Many thousands of women continued to die unnecessarily in childbirth until cross contamination was indisputably confirmed by others.
Nonetheless, skeptics do not see an occasional error as a flaw in skepticism. In the historical cases where this has happened, the evidence gains eventual acceptance (often when the technology and associated experimental advances are made so that the falsifiability of the theory is possible). Max Planck made the following remark on how valid theories gain acceptance:
 The Only Astrology Book You'll Ever Need |
 The Gnostic Gospels |
 The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ |
 The Secret Language of Birthdays: Personology Profiles for Each Day of the Year | ||||
 Sextrology: The Astrology of Sex and the Sexes |
 Sexual Astrology : A Sign-by-Sign Guide to Your Sensual Stars |
 Many Lives, Many Masters |
 Chart Interpretation Handbook: Guidelines for Understanding the Essentials of the Birth Chart | ||||
 Astrology for the Soul |
