I have been reading a little earlier about a spectrum of scepticism, ranging from an uncritical, unchallenging belief in authority (credulism) to an all-doubting, nothing-believing nihilistic rejection of all trust in anything (cynicism). I have been doing so in this blog post in Almost Diamonds, a blog about scepticism and various other things. I call myself a sceptic, but I am forced by intellectual honesty to ask myself: Am I really?
That post, which contains some interesting links (this one was my favourite, because of the video), made me think about where I might fall on this topic, analysed and laid bare for your interest.
If we imagine a line with cynicism at the left end, and credulism is at the right, then I guess I'm a bit left of middle. I might appear to others to be strongly left, but that's not my self-perception. I don't want to be extreme on either end (so it's possible that my perception has been altered by my desire to be a certain way), but it's important not to decide on an outcome before doing the experiment, so I spent a little while examining myself and the way I think about things, and these are my initial findings:
I'm sceptical of things because I hate so much to be lied to. This is, in a way, both rational and irrational: in that, I couldn't give you a specific rationale as to why I detest untruth so much and at the same time, it seems like it must be a generally reasonable thing to hate, for pragmatic reasons (i.e. being lied to might cause an investment of resources that is then not profitable). This somewhat-irrational response to lying leads to a sort of occasional paranoia; for example, I have been known to shout at cosmetics adverts.
Case in point:
Check out this link to the Clinique website : http://www.clinique.co.uk/cms/product/franchise/skincare_antiaging_mpp.tmpl
notice the 'Age Defense Moisturiser'? What is that even? AGE DEFENSE? REALLY? Unless they have found a way to actually stop time, it's a:
Neither am I free of credulity. I do believe things, with poor, little or zero evidence, all the damned time. Yesterday in fact, I expressed concern about the concept of living in Manchester, based on no particular reason. (Societal memetics - I think I'm using that right - has given me the idea that Manchester was a bad, rough place. This is an irrational idea, and my girlfriend pointed out that I had never been to Manchester for more than a stop on a train and don't have first hand experience of what the city is like, and have no credible authority on whose data to base an opinion. She didn't say ''that's gobshite, dear'' because she's very well-spoken, but that is what it boils down to, and she was dead right.) Although this is a bad thing, and I apologise to the city and inhabitants of Manchester for my unthinking disparagements, I at least can examine a belief and reject or retain it according to merit. I will have no opinion on Manchester from now on until I can gather a proper, reasoned notion of what it's like.
So there are examples of me performing unreasoning cynicism (that cosmetics have the effects that they claim to), and unreasoning belief (that Manchester is a bad place), the former of which lands on the left hand end of the cynicism-credulity scale, and the latter of which would fall into the credulous, right-hand end of our scale.
I then must re-examine my unreasoning positions on these subjects, to see if there is, or not, a possible reason to hold them. Taking the example of cosmetics, is there any reason to believe that they do what they say they do? It depends, I suppose, on what they say they do. I am deeply suspicious of anything that is clearly counter-reality, like the magical potion from the above link that prevents aging. That's plainly nonsense. However, if my cheap basics-brand moisturizer from Boots claims nothing at all, other than it will make dry-feeling skin feel better, and it does, then fair enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The blog post I referenced talked about finding a healthy midpoint between cynicism and credulity, which is where reason comes into it. I may be oversimplifying this, or I might have a bad handle on the subject, but it sure seems to me that to be a non-hypocritical sceptic, in addition to calling bullshit on actual bullshit, one must frequently, regularly and unstintingly re-examine one's notions of the world, compare them to evidence, and amend as necessary.
So that's where I stand; how about you?
That post, which contains some interesting links (this one was my favourite, because of the video), made me think about where I might fall on this topic, analysed and laid bare for your interest.
If we imagine a line with cynicism at the left end, and credulism is at the right, then I guess I'm a bit left of middle. I might appear to others to be strongly left, but that's not my self-perception. I don't want to be extreme on either end (so it's possible that my perception has been altered by my desire to be a certain way), but it's important not to decide on an outcome before doing the experiment, so I spent a little while examining myself and the way I think about things, and these are my initial findings:
I'm sceptical of things because I hate so much to be lied to. This is, in a way, both rational and irrational: in that, I couldn't give you a specific rationale as to why I detest untruth so much and at the same time, it seems like it must be a generally reasonable thing to hate, for pragmatic reasons (i.e. being lied to might cause an investment of resources that is then not profitable). This somewhat-irrational response to lying leads to a sort of occasional paranoia; for example, I have been known to shout at cosmetics adverts.
Case in point:
Check out this link to the Clinique website : http://www.clinique.co.uk/cms/product/franchise/skincare_antiaging_mpp.tmpl
notice the 'Age Defense Moisturiser'? What is that even? AGE DEFENSE? REALLY? Unless they have found a way to actually stop time, it's a:
Neither am I free of credulity. I do believe things, with poor, little or zero evidence, all the damned time. Yesterday in fact, I expressed concern about the concept of living in Manchester, based on no particular reason. (Societal memetics - I think I'm using that right - has given me the idea that Manchester was a bad, rough place. This is an irrational idea, and my girlfriend pointed out that I had never been to Manchester for more than a stop on a train and don't have first hand experience of what the city is like, and have no credible authority on whose data to base an opinion. She didn't say ''that's gobshite, dear'' because she's very well-spoken, but that is what it boils down to, and she was dead right.) Although this is a bad thing, and I apologise to the city and inhabitants of Manchester for my unthinking disparagements, I at least can examine a belief and reject or retain it according to merit. I will have no opinion on Manchester from now on until I can gather a proper, reasoned notion of what it's like.
So there are examples of me performing unreasoning cynicism (that cosmetics have the effects that they claim to), and unreasoning belief (that Manchester is a bad place), the former of which lands on the left hand end of the cynicism-credulity scale, and the latter of which would fall into the credulous, right-hand end of our scale.
I then must re-examine my unreasoning positions on these subjects, to see if there is, or not, a possible reason to hold them. Taking the example of cosmetics, is there any reason to believe that they do what they say they do? It depends, I suppose, on what they say they do. I am deeply suspicious of anything that is clearly counter-reality, like the magical potion from the above link that prevents aging. That's plainly nonsense. However, if my cheap basics-brand moisturizer from Boots claims nothing at all, other than it will make dry-feeling skin feel better, and it does, then fair enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The blog post I referenced talked about finding a healthy midpoint between cynicism and credulity, which is where reason comes into it. I may be oversimplifying this, or I might have a bad handle on the subject, but it sure seems to me that to be a non-hypocritical sceptic, in addition to calling bullshit on actual bullshit, one must frequently, regularly and unstintingly re-examine one's notions of the world, compare them to evidence, and amend as necessary.
So that's where I stand; how about you?
No comments:
Post a Comment