I think we had a discussion of "skeptic" about six months ago, but I couldn't find it
when I searched for it.
But perhaps it would interest enough newcomers to justify repetition.
I just got around to reading Scientific American for April, which has an article
entitled:Skepticism as a Virtue, by Michael Shermer, who has a website named
www.skeptic.com He first quotes Pope's Essay on Man:


Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest,
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast,
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reasoning but to err.

Then he quotes Stephen J. Gould:

To my considerable chagrin, it was five years into the editing and publishing of Skeptic
magazine before I realized I had never bothered to define the word or even examined
how others had used it. Then Stephen Jay Gould, in the foreword to my book
Why People Believe Weird Things, mentioned that it comes from the Greek skeptikos,
for "thoughtful." Etymologically, in fact, its Latin derivative is scepticus, for "inquiring"
or "reflective." Further variations in the ancient Greek include "watchman" or "mark
to aim at." Hence,skepticism is thoughtful and reflective inquiry. To be skeptical
is to aim toward a goal of critical thinking.
Skeptics are the watchmen of reasoning errors, the Ralph Naders of bad ideas.

Here is URL to Scientific American article: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z12E51F41

Thank you, Dr. Bill. This erases my errorical perception that skeptical meant doubt, or questioning, so strong that it was edged right up against outright disbelief. Just as I used to think that the word criticism automatically meant a negative pronouncement, when in fact it can mean assessment that is either positive or negative.

I used to think that the word criticism automatically meant a negative pronouncement, when in fact it can mean assessment that is either positive or negative

Yes, timely reminders of true meanings, Jackie & Bill.

Only problem is where the true meanings have been supplanted by excessive usage in (for instance) a negative context.

It's a bit like decimate, where the commonly-accepted meaning (and usage) is sigificantly different to the true meaning of "reduce by a tenth". These days (over the last 10 years) the original meaning has been relegated to a second-rate alternative in most dictionaries.

>It's a bit like decimate, where the commonly-accepted meaning (and usage) is sigificantly different to the true meaning of "reduce by a tenth". These days (over the last 10 years) the original meaning has been relegated to a second-rate alternative in most dictionaries.



Oh, please! I may be only a stranger here, but even I know that the OED shows citations using the currently-accepted definition of decimate as far back as the 1830s. The change is hardly a recent phenomenon, and if anyone is going to complain about the shift in meaning of decimate, I will feel compelled to introduce that one to a nice woman I know. Shift happens people, get over it.

Dere's a link to May Scientific American, to an article containing a quote from Carl Sagan:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P1B221151

I don't know why, but this isn't clickable, but does work with edit,copy,,,edit,paste into Location box.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P1B221151

Dr Bill,
Did you remember to put [url ] before the link and [/url ] (without the space on both) after it?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P1B221151

I may be only a stranger here

but never was a stranger more welcome! Pull up a chair and sit down with us, and decimate the old mates with your gentle wit ;)

Welcome, sjm. Glad to see you aboard.

I was a subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer since my early years of college. Sometimes I would forego buying textbooks. I never skipped SI, though, if there were any way I could afford it. For a while I subscribed to SI and Skeptic magazine and I thihnk I prefer Skeptic magazine.

In recent years I had become skeptical of the skeptics and Skeptic magazine seemed to be a little less nasty in tone that SI. I much prefer it.

k

and decimate the old mates with your gentle wit

Yeah, I can take it on the chin, mate! oooooff


Fair enough, sjm, that was a slightly unfortunate example and my timing may have been out by 170 years or so..

But meanings do change through commonplace "incorrect" usage, and this can make etymology - and older dictionary definitions - pretty worthless. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; it just proves that language is alive, and you can't necessarily establish meanings through written references alone.

It particularly interests me that values get ascribed to certain words that started off valueless. pagan and heathen spring instantly to mind.

"Critical appreciation" is almost an oxymoron.

But etymologies excepted, Skepticism is very close to formalised incredulity - so "skeptical belief" would be an oxymoron.

And somebody who believed whatever you told them would, of course, be an antisceptic.

Skepticism is very close to formalised incredulity


I think that's it. Even 'True Believers' are skeptical of opinions that contradict what they already know to be true. What differentiates The Skeptic from The Believer, however, is (or should be) that The Skeptic applies his skepticism even to his own views.

The first book on the subject I ever read was called Skepticism, by Arne Naess. (I'd seen a reference to it in another book called The B.S. Factor.) Skepticism doesn't appear so much a philosophy as a tool for philosophy, just as logic is a tool for philosophy. OTOH, I think the radical skepticism espoused by Sextus Empiricus that Naess describes could be viewed as a philosophy in itself. (Or maybe it's just a reason not to do philosophy - I've never been able to figure that out.) Interestingly, the radical skeptics encourage the use of language that many editors would find repellent. Instead of saying, "This is so" they recommend saying, "Such appears to be the case" or some variant thereof.

I'm not sure I'm using the technical jargon correctly, but I think David Hume (who could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel) is correctly labeled a radical skeptic. Hume questioned, among many other things, the justification for inductive arguments. (So you have seen thousands of crows, all of them black - that's no justification for saying there are no white crows.) I'm very fond of Popper (Objective Knowledge) who maintained Hume's answer to his original question was correct, and so reformulated Hume's question into one that had a more practical result.

For over a decade while I was studying the evolution/creation controversy, I came upon reference upon reference to Popper. Nowadays, many mainline skeptics are highly critical of him. Paul Kurtz and Martin Gardner have written articles in SI blasting him and his philosophy. For the time being, though, Popper's falsificationism makes a lot more sense to me than either Kurtz's or Gardner's criticisms.

k

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about; but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.

Came out by the same Door as in I went.


Among my favorites, Bill.

thanks,
k

Scepticism of a sort:"Be not the first by whom the new is tried. Nor yet the last to lay the old aside." Alexander Pope

Then Stephen Jay Gould, in the foreword to my book Why People Believe Weird Things, mentioned that it comes from the Greek skeptikos, for "thoughtful." Etymologically, in fact, its Latin derivative is scepticus, for "inquiring" or "reflective." Further variations in the ancient Greek include "watchman" or "mark to aim at." Hence,skepticism is thoughtful and reflective inquiry. To be skeptical is to aim toward a goal of critical thinking.

Just because a word's various etymological roots combine to suggest a nifty meaning for it, doesn't mean that that is the current meaning for it. As we've said here many times, although not quite so neatly as sjm does in this thread - shift happens. AHD gives this for skeptical: Marked by or given to doubt; questioning.

I regularly describe myself as skeptical of a given idea or proposal, and I use it to mean I have doubts about the merits of the idea and feel it should be closely examined, and ideally, improved. I think the word does convey an undertone, even an overtone, of doubt, as well as the notion that we should be critical in our thinking, in order to carry it off as clearly and accurately as we can manage.