The definition of “Skeptic”
Date: June 15, 2008 | Author: Steven NovellaCategory: Skepticism | Comments: 13 » |
This question comes up frequently – most recently by “False.cut” on the SGU forums. What is the actual definition of “skeptic?” I have been thinking about this seriously for over a decade. I don’t think I have come up with the perfect pithy answer (I’ll let you know when/if I do). The challenge is that the concept of skepticism is fairly complex and involved, so any brief definition leaves out important stuff.
This discussion is often linked to the marketability of the term “skeptic.” These are distinct issues, but they are related. I will not address this question in detail, except to say that for now “skeptic” is good enough, I really think we are stuck with it, and no one has come up with a better alternative. (See “brights”.)
Before I attempt a concise definition, indulge me in a bit of background.
The word skeptic derives from Greek. Its original meaning was inquiry and doubt – which is actually a good first approximation of a definition. Later, philosophers used the word to mean philosophical doubt – the notion that all pretense to knowledge is mere hubris. In other words, we know nothing and can know nothing.
In contemporary vernacular, skeptic generally means someone who questions conventional wisdom, or someone who habitually or excessively doubts. It is often used as a pejorative to mean closed-minded. This is the baggage that the modern term “skeptic” must deal with, and it is about as far away as you can get from skepticism as defined by those who actually call themselves skeptics.
The modern skeptical movement has used the self-label of “skeptic” for decades. Usually when someone asks what the definition of a skeptic is they are referring to self-described modern skeptics. This type of skepticism is sometimes referred to as “scientific skepticism.” I believe this term was coined by Carl Sagan, and I often use it myself when distinguishing what I advocate from other forms of skepticism.
In fact it is my goal to fix in the public consciousness that “skeptic” refers to scientific skepticism and all that implies. I know from personal conversations that others, like Michael Shermer, share this goal. He is particularly tied to the term “skeptic” because it is the name of his society and magazine. We too have decided to go with the term when forming the New England Skeptical Society, and we doubled-down with the Skeptics’ Guide.
So here is my attempt at a reasonably concise definition of skeptic and skepticism – the brand of scientific skepticism we advocate as activist skeptics.
(Drum roll, please.)
A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.
There ya go. That is at least a reasonable trade off between thorough and concise. I kept wanting to add more, but I think that definition captures the important bits.
Of course books have, will, and should be written plumbing the depths of skepticism and what it means to be a skeptic – but any well-formed idea should be able to be expressed briefly.
____________________________________
Happy Father’s Day to all you fathers out there. I am off to spend the day with my two daughters and their granddad.
13 Responses to “The definition of “Skeptic””
By godkillzyou on Jun 15, 2008 | Reply
Well put, Steve. Skepticism is tough to put a concise definition on. Unfortunately, with the baggage you’ve mentioned that comes along with being a Skeptic, only a long definition will probably suffice. Almost like a mission statement?
If only Skeptics around the world could get together and decide on some all-encompassing definition of what it means to be a Skeptic… then we could put it all together in interesting little pamphlets and hand them out to people, go knocking on people’s doors early on Sunday mornings and ask them if they understand the evidence supporting evolution.
By irishjazz on Jun 15, 2008 | Reply
Thanks.
Note there is no religious test in the definition. Given the back and forth on the boards, there is a strong contingent that strongly advocates an skepticism = atheism conclusion. Godkillzyou stops just short of this in his long definition, while satirically noting the absurdity of athiest evangelism.
The acceptance of this definition will no doubt quench the flaming web arguement. If not, there are many willing to help with ready buckets of rhetorical gasoline. Some have a weakness for inconclusive arguments with the smart people your podcast attracts.
I may be one of them, alas.
By bigjohn756 on Jun 15, 2008 | Reply
Doubled-down? Steve, I do believe that you are all set for extra-curricular activities at TAM6:-)
By Aprototheist on Jun 15, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for this Steve – I think this is a good re-definition that I would sign up to.
It addresses the questions I have been posting on the forum in a number of ways:
1) It shows that a redefinition from the original meaning is necessary to reflect how the term is used today
2) It permits any “critical thinker” who follows were the evidence leads to define themselves as a skeptic – should they be atheist, theist or agnostic.
This was an important point for me to clear up regarding the whole skeptical movement – whether I, as a theist, was an outsider looking in or can count myself part of the community.
By jonny_eh on Jun 15, 2008 | Reply
It’s important to emphasize method, as you did. Too many skeptics, usually of the hardcore atheist kind, emphasize a set of beliefs.
“You believe ‘x’? You’re not a skeptic!”
Only if they refuse to change their belief when confronted with proper logic and evidence do they get to lose that ‘badge’, IMHO.
By Devonhartigan on Jun 15, 2008 | Reply
I had a go on a personal defintion of being a skeptic/skepticism on my website skepticsanctuary.com too (not a commercial since I don’t update it anymore).
“Scientific Skepticism can be seen as a collection of tools to help one view and deconstruct the world in a rational and scientific way, but it can also be seen as a way of thought, a critical and analyzing way of thinking. Being outspoken critical when appropriate, either when the extraordinary is claimed without sufficient evidence, or when religious dogmas are presented as the truth and being left unchallenged, is necessary to avoid a state without difference between facts and beliefs.
Being a skeptic is not equal to being close minded, on the contrary, most skeptics would welcome any paradigm-shifting discovery, as long as it adheres to the scientific methods, and isn’t, for example, based purely on anecdotal evidence. Skeptics are as open minded as everyone else, but do not uncritically accept any notion presented before them. One have to have standards of knowing – also known as epistemology – or else one could accept or reject any claim at will, which most people would recognize as a state of chaos. Especially the requirement of falsifiability is paramount. One can think of an infinite amount of unfalsifiable notions all day long, but if you don’t have any standards for either rejecting or accepting these notions, or have no possible way of testing them, one could never state whether something is true or not. The Scientific Method has through time shown to be the best and most accurate way to obtain knowledge about the world, and has furthermore shown to be an extremely dynamic way of doing this, because the scientific method always allows for change and improvement of a theory. Nothing is ever carved in stone, which is different for most religions, pseudosciences, and alternative medicines, and thus allows for errorchanging.
…”
By reverend on Jun 15, 2008 | Reply
I did have a little twinge of envy when Martin Rundqvist mentioned in his interview on the SGU podcast a few weeks back, that the Swedish word for ’skeptic’ doesn’t have the pejorative connotation that it has acquired in English. In Australia, at least, if I tell someone I’m a skeptic, they will most likely hear the word ‘cynic’, and while it is true that I can be very cynical, that tendency has principally arisen because I’m skeptical!
Thanks for the distillation Steve. Now for the five word version that we can put on a t-shirt…
By jedischooldropout on Jun 15, 2008 | Reply
We could confuse and irritate the fundies by advancing a media campaign to start calling ourselves (in ominous tones) “Saganists.”
By radiantmatrix on Jun 16, 2008 | Reply
My terse response is “a skeptic is one who believes only that which is supported by sound evidence.”
By Dave on Jun 17, 2008 | Reply
How about:
Skepticism is the willing suspension of true belief.