The Trouble with Skepticism

[Speck Tater]

Let me start right off by saying that, historically, skepticism has been spectacularly successful. For thousand of years of recorded history the skeptics have almost always been right and the "true believers" have almost always been wrong. The problem is that skeptics tend to make the simple mistake of over generalization. In other words, they go from the acknowledged fact that the skeptics are almost always right to the erroneous generalization that skeptics are always right.

In truth, the glorious history of skepticism is also marred by numerous rather spectacular failures. Sometimes the skeptics are wrong, and sometimes they are spectacularly wrong.

The problem is that skeptics tend to sweep their failures under the rug and pretend that they don't exist. It is at this point that skepticism goes from being a defensible position to a quasi-religious dogma.

Don't get me wrong. I still believe that the skeptics are almost always right. And if I were simply trying to make money by placing bets on the outcome of various controversial topics I would always place my money on the skeptics. But in doing so I would not expect to win every bet, only the vast majority of them.

But those skeptics who have turned skepticism into a quasi-religious dogma, and refuse to acknowledge, probably even to themselves, skepticism's history of occasional failures, fool themselves into believing that, because of their skeptical position they are infallible. This is simple arrogance, and is not justified by the historical record.

The true skeptic, and I consider myself to be a true skeptic, is even skeptical of his fellow skeptics, and I, myself, have found many instances of what can only be called sloppy science published in the skeptical journals and web sites. Skeptics have to get realistic about their skepticism and realize that even though they are almost always right, they are sometimes wrong. And the truth of the matter is, they will never know what they are wrong about until they stop pretending to be infallible and admit that the possibility of error exists, however remote it might be.

I think I'm pretty much in the right place for the simple reason that the gullible call me a skeptic and the skeptics call me gullible. That I can be antagonistic to both brands of "true believer" I take as a validation that I'm on the right path.

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("But who watches the watchers?")
"It's not what you don't know that hurts you most, it's what you know that ain't so" --Will Rogers