Scientific skepticism

Scientific skepticism (also spelled scepticism) is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge".[1] For example, Robert K. Merton asserts that all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny (see Mertonian norms).[2]

Contents

  • About the term and its scope 1
    • Various definitions 1.1
  • Overview 2
  • History of scientific skepticism 3
  • Examples 4
    • Pseudoskepticism 4.1
  • Perceived dangers of pseudoscience 5
  • Notable skeptical media 6
  • See also 7
  • References 8
  • Further reading 9
  • External links 10

About the term and its scope

Scientific skepticism is also called rational skepticism, and it is sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry.

Scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism, which questions our ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how we perceive it. Methodological skepticism, a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one's beliefs, is similar but distinct. The New Skepticism described by Paul Kurtz is scientific skepticism.[3]

Various definitions

Scientific skepticism has been defined as:

"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."
— Steven Novella[4]
"Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position."
"Skepticism is a method of examining claims about the world. The skeptical 'toolbox' includes a reliance upon reason, critical thinking, and a desire for verifiable, testable evidence about particular claims (especially extraordinary ones). Usually, the 'skeptical way of thinking' is embodied in the scientific method."
— DrinkingSkeptically.org[6]
"...skeptics should be focused on, are focused on, have always been focused on, how to think not what to think."
— Jamy Ian Swiss[7]

Overview

Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose.

Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.

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. Skepticism is part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.[8] The scientific skepticism community traditionally is focused on 'what' people believe and not 'why' they believe, there might be psychological, cognitive or instinctive reasons for belief when there is little evidence.[9]

History of scientific skepticism

According to skeptic historian Daniel Loxton "skepticism is a story without a beginning or an end", arguing that doubting and investigating extraordinary claims is as old as humanity itself.[10] Throughout history, there are examples of individuals practising critical inquiry and writing books or performing publicly against particular frauds and popular superstitions, including people like Lucian of Samosata (2nd century), Michel de Montaigne (16th century), Thomas Ady and Thomas Browne (17th century), Antoine Lavoisier and Benjamin Franklin (18th century), many different philosophers, scientists and magicians throughout the 19th and early 20th century up until and after Harry Houdini. However, skeptics banding together in societies that research the paranormal and fringe science is a modern phenomenon.[10]

Loxton mentions the Belgian

  • The Skeptic's Dictionary - Carroll, Robert Todd, contains many articles on science, alternative medicine, pseudoscience, etc.
  • A skeptical manifesto, Shermer, Michael, A philosophical analysis of scientific skepticism
  • Proper Criticism. (csicop.org) - Hyman, Ray, Suggestions to upgrade the quality of Scientific skepticism
  • Strategies for dissenting scientists. Martin, Brian, Society for Scientific Exploration. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 12 No 4. 1998. (PDF), Strategies available for dissenting scientists.
  • Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. Operation Clambake. 1998. Based on the book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark". (ISBN 0-345-40946-9)
  • New England Skeptical Society Newsletter Articles - Includes articles on such topics as Homeopathy, Intelligent Design, and other pseudoscientific topics
  • sci.skeptic FAQ
  • Nonsense (And Why It's So Popular) A course syllabus from The College of Wooster.
  • Why Is There A Skeptical Movement? - Loxton, Daniel, Contains an overview of the history (and pre-history) of the skeptical movement as well as the principles underlying scientific skepticism.

External links

Further reading

  1. ^ : quoting Merton, R. K. (1942)
  2. ^ in
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^ a b c d e
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^ Loxton (2013), p.29.
  16. ^ Loxton (2013), p.32.
  17. ^ Loxton (2013), p.2.
  18. ^
  19. ^
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^ a b
  26. ^
  27. ^
  28. ^
  29. ^
  30. ^
  31. ^
  32. ^
  33. ^ See Note 1 p. 64 quoting
  34. ^
  35. ^
  36. ^ Robert Todd Carroll "Internet Bunk: Skeptical Investigations." Skeptic's Dictionary
  37. ^ Allegory of the cave, Plato The Republic, (New CUP translation by Tom Griffith and G.R.F. Ferrari into English) ISBN 0-521-48443-X
  38. ^
  39. ^ Fighting Against Flimflam, TIME, Jun. 24, 2001
  40. ^ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Black Swan, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-552-77429-1).
  41. ^ Better living without God? - Religion is a dangerously irrational mirage, says Dawkins, San Francisco Chronicle, October 15, 2006
  42. ^

References

See also

Notable skeptical media

Bertrand Russell argued that individual actions are based upon the beliefs of the person acting, and if the beliefs are unsupported by evidence, then such beliefs can lead to destructive actions.[38] James Randi also often writes on the issue of fraud by psychics and faith healers.[39] 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 (notably in The God Delusion), and considers creationism a threat to biology.[40][41] Some skeptics, such as the members of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast, oppose certain new religious movements because of their cult-like behaviours.[42]

Skepticism is an approach to strange or unusual claims where doubt is preferred to belief, given a lack of conclusive evidence. Skeptics generally consider beliefs in the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) and psychic powers as misguided, since no empirical evidence exists supporting such phenomena. The Ancient Greek philosopher Plato believed that to release others from ignorance despite their initial resistance is a great and noble thing.[37] Modern skeptical writers address this question in a variety of ways.

Perceived dangers of pseudoscience

Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"[34] puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[35] argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."[36]

"There are some members of the skeptics' groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion ..."[33]

Scientific skepticism is itself sometimes criticized on this ground. The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in controversial fields where opposition from scientific skeptics is strong. For example, in 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":

Richard Cameron Wilson, in an article in New Statesman, wrote that "the bogus sceptic is, in reality, a disguised dogmatist, made all the more dangerous for his success in appropriating the mantle of the unbiased and open-minded inquirer". Some advocates of discredited intellectual positions (such as AIDS denial, Holocaust denial and Climate change denial) engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics". This is despite their cherry picking of evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief.[31] According to Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008), the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".[32]

Pseudoskepticism

Skeptics such as James Randi have become famous for debunking claims related to some of these. Paranormal investigator Joe Nickell cautions, however, that "debunkers" must be careful to engage paranormal claims seriously and without bias. He explains that open minded investigation is more likely to teach and change minds than debunking.[29][30]

Some of the topics that scientifically skeptical literature questions include health claims surrounding certain foods, procedures, and alternative medicines; the plausibility and existence of supernatural abilities (e.g. tarot reading) or entities (e.g. poltergeists, angels, gods - including Zeus); the monsters of cryptozoology (e.g. the Loch Ness monster); as well as creationism/intelligent design, dowsing, conspiracy theories, and other claims the skeptic sees as unlikely to be true on scientific grounds.[27][28]

Examples

After the Question, Explore, Discover (QED) in Manchester, UK. Six World Skeptics Congresses have been held so far, namely in Buffalo, New York (1996), Heidelberg, Germany (1998), Sydney, Australia (2000), Burbank, California (2002), Abano Terme, Italy (2004) and Berlin, Germany (2012).[25][26]

Although most skeptics in the English-speaking world see the 1976 formation of The Skeptics Society (founded in 1992 by Michael Shermer), the New England Skeptical Society (originating in 1996) and the Independent Investigations Group (formed in 2000 by James Underdown).

Influential North American skeptics: Ray Hyman, Paul Kurtz, James Randi and Kendrick Frazier.

[14] was founded in France.AFIS In 1968 the [13].Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science's 1952 book Martin Gardner traces the origins of the modern scientific skeptical movement to Michael Shermer In contrast, [10].Second World War the VtdK only focuses on fighting quackery, and thus has a 'narrow mandate'. The Comité Para was partly formed as a response to a predatory industry of bogus psychics who were exploiting the grieving relatives of people who had gone missing during the [12][11]