What is wrong with skepticism? I understand skepticism as thinking twice about assumptions and conclusions, thus correct misheld beliefs. Am I wrong in my perception of skepticism or is thre something inherently wrong with this idea? I start this thread since I get the impression that people around here do not like skepticism without stating why.
Where did you get that impression?
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/any-advice-for-molding-a-young-scholar-for-those-with-kids-that-is/13939/6 ← MrSchnapps
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/talebs-ten-principles-for-a-black-swan-robust-world/14103 ← Prateek Sanjay
Theese are of course only two examples but since no one opposed their views, I came to the conclusion that there is not much opposition to their writings. But to be sure and start a debate, I opened this thread.
-L. A. Rollins
This is the article Prateek Sanjay probably referred to:
The issue seems to be that Sceptics wouldn’t agree with either praxeology or the scientific method for economics, and as a result see exchange as a zero sum game. (Not really sure how they come to this conclusion, how can they trust what they “observe” or “think”?) This has lead Montaigne to support Mercantilism to the French State.
Well, the word “skeptic” is one of those which people use so inconsistently that it becomes almost useless. So, if somebody uses it, just ask them how they are defining it. If you define it like Rothbard did in this article, as somebody who thinks that “nothing can really be known as the truth”, then I don’t think that anybody reasonable would want to be called a skeptic, but, if you define it like Wikipedia does in this part of this article, as “one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation”, then I don’t think that anybody reasonable wouldn’t want to be called a skeptic.
False, I question my beliefs everyday. There is never a moment where I am sure I am right, and no good science minded person would ever say that they are. Science can only prove up to 99.99999999%
Skepticism is the foundation of science, objectivity, empiricism, and falsifiability.
I was refering to the quote BTW, not the post above me.
Tho I would not mind you calling me a skeptic based on either of those ways of looking at it
I think it is like what Rothbard said about being ignorant of economics. I’ll paraphrase and make it about skepticism – the point holds.
“It is no crime to be skeptical about things, which, after all, may require a specialized discipline’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on philosophical subjects while remaining in this state of skepticism/ignorance.”
The problem with skepticism is that so-called ‘agnostics’ and others like the high horse of calling, for instance, theists and atheists morons. As if their claim of this truth of moronhood and what it entails is not a type of knowledge. It reminds me of people who like to say offensive comments and then yell ‘just kidding’ when people respond.
It’s true that it could mean one who is in the midst of testing a methodology or attempting to refute it, but in that case it is the process of doing this – and not the successful undoing. For that comes back out the other side and is not skepticism any longer.
Can you elaborate on that?
- You must ask yourself why you would rather disbelieve than believe? You can doubt like a skeptic, or assert knowledge like some dogmatist, or you could just believe something (which is not a claim on knowledge). Even with the fact that I could be wrong, there is no objective reason why I should avoid the risk of believing something is untrue. Note, I am not calling belief for the sake of believing good or better than doubt or the assertion of knowledge, I am just saying there is no reason one is inherently superior to the other and they are all functions of choice and will. These choices are already simply a reflection of ones already set desires.
The option exists to make a choice for a resolution and not necessarily a conclusion; in some cases this can be the more beneficial of choices.
- There is no good reason to have objectivism as an end in itself. Why hold no values when values can be held? Why be a nihilist when you can be an egoist? Why not create when you have the power and opportunity to do so?
YOu dont have to be a nihilist to be a skeptic. You can question the validity of things, and still believe them. I question the validity of the Big Bang (never really made much sense to me), but I still hold it to be an accurate representation of the begginings of the universe
skepticism does not entail disbelief. It just means you question whether it is valid or not.
No, but nihilism is a subset of it. I was just illustrating that. And once again I don’t say either is bad or useless, they are tools for one to employ as one sees fit.
“believe in me, because i don’t believe in anything.”
-counting crows
I am (scientific) skeptic - therefore I’ve become an anarchist. Skepticism is a way to live. Without it you are lost. How you gonna differenciate between good medicine and bad medicine (also known as quackery)? Only through critical and skeptical thinking. And here I am talking about myself, so no need to be offended if you believe in “alternative medicine”.
There are many kinds of skepticism and most of them I reject, but I still believe in “scientific methodology” and logic. So when one talks about “skepticism” it is good to know which kind of it one talks about. Is it open-minded one or “ignorant” one? Etc. etc. etc.