On Skepticism

The modern expression of logic and rationality over the Internet is skepticism. The Bayesian system of reevaluating one's own beliefs falls hand-in-hand with skepticism. Quite often, this leads to aggravation towards the inability of others to change their minds or acknowledge logic. Occassionally, skeptics are accussed by these others of being "trolls", an understandable confusion. It arises from the pandemic problem of pseudoskeptics.

The difference between true skepticism and pseudoskepticism is highlighted in the article [url=http://truthfall.com/pseudoscepticism/]Pseudoscepticism[/url] from the website [url=http://truthfall.com/]TruthFall[/url]. They correctly define true skepticism as objective inquiry and evidence-seeking that challenges all sides of a debate, including the skeptic's own beliefs. The goal is to seek and find the truth, no matter where the chase leads. A real skeptic can admit that he or she is wrong when faced with the evidence against his or her argument. Skeptics overcome bias and argue for the side with the most logical, rational, or evidential value in any conflict. Quoth Descartes on the duties assumed by being a skeptic:

[quote]The first was never to accept anything as true that I did not know to be evidently so: that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to include in my judgements nothing more than what presented itself so clearly and so distinctly to my mind that I might have no occasion to place it in doubt.[/quote]
Or to say, to avoid bias from influencing judgement and delve only in known facts.

[quote]The second, to divide each of the difficulties that I was examining into as many parts as might be possible and necessary in order best to solve it.[/quote]
To reduce the problem or argument into as many parts as possible: the great art of Reductionism. To best examine, define, or explain a quality of something, reduce it into parts that no longer contain that quality.

[quote]The third, to conduct my thoughts in an orderly way, beginning with the simplest objects and the easiest to know, in order to climb gradually, as by degrees, as far as the knowledge of the most complex, and even supposing some order among those subjects which do not precede each other naturally.[/quote]
To make connections; to build upon concepts in order to know, understand, and be able to explain each one before moving on to the next. Just as you broke the object with the quality down into parts which do not exhibit the quality, you now build it back up, bit by bit, examining how each connection creates or retains the quality.

[quote]And the last, everywhere to make such complete enumerations and such general reviews that I would be sure to have omitted nothing.[/quote]
To make a thorough examination of all available evidence for and against each and every explanation or argument before passing judgement and reaching a conclusion.

This is the process, the duties, of skepticism. The ordinary manifestation of logic and rationality, able to be applied to all fields. But then there are the pseudoskeptics. These people, posing as rational or logical individuals, have and argue for a pre-defined agenda. In the process, they immediately dismiss any opposite ideas or theories, no matter how much proof supports the other hypothesis. This is not an issue connected solely to skepticism; members of all beliefs or systems thereof can or will dismiss ideas opposing their ideology and shun those that express these ideas, all the while professing themselves to be "open-minded". However, it is most common for supporters of mainstream ideology to claim to be skeptics.

However, pseudoskepticism is [b]not[/b] skepticism. It should not be even confused or associated with skepticism. It soils the name and image of logic and rationality on the Internet. It is mere faith-based disbelief, and its practitioners should be [i]ashamed[/i] of themselves. As a society of Bayesians and skeptics, our greatest common enemy in our pursuit of universal implementation of rationality and logic is the pseudoskeptic people. In the Project, we fight and aim to exterminate the irrational cancer plaguing our forums and boards. The pseudoskeptics appear to move parallel to our conspiracy, but, in actuality, do more hurt than help. To restore the face of logic, rationality, Bayesianism, and skepticism, we must reveal the differences between the pseudoskeptics and the true ones in order to maintain our fight for the truth.

Seraph