Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#76608 07/22/02 11:17 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526

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



#76609 07/22/02 12:58 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
W
wwh Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
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.


#76610 07/22/02 01:25 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526

Came out by the same Door as in I went.


Among my favorites, Bill.

thanks,
k



#76611 07/22/02 05:44 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
W
wwh Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
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



#76612 07/24/02 04:21 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 544
H
addict
Offline
addict
H
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 544
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.


Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,912
Posts229,283
Members9,179
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV, Heather_Turey, Standy
9,179 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 435 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,542
wofahulicodoc 10,510
LukeJavan8 9,916
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5