| |
The Limits of Skepticism
Andrew Paterson—12/2002 |
| |
In our current climate
of new ideas and alternatives to traditional thinking,
there is a predictable intellectual backlash of
scepticism. Whilst discernment is always an essential
quality, hard-nosed skepticism can be a cover for
the fearful denial of new ideas. In fact, scepticism
is ultimately as subjective as the worldviews it
rejects, and it is still an essential defence against
those who wish to control us. |
|
| |
 SKEPTIC, according to the Oxford English dictionary, is "a
person inclined to doubt all accepted opinions".
Skepticism has long been central to several systems
of knowledge including modern science and core Buddhism.
These systems of knowledge must fit reality (whether
external or internal) very well as they are roadmaps
to a destination, and imaginary roads and footpaths
are a waste of time at best and dangerous mirages at
worst, no matter how many "authorities" assure
us they are there! Skepticism is, therefore, a useful
intellectual quality if you are journeying in reality — if
you have a specific place that you wish to go, whether
that place is outside or inside. Opinions should be
questioned because only by undertaking that questioning
process can we find, for ourselves, the limits of intellectual
knowledge. This frees our minds not only from unnecessary
clutter that obscures clarity, but also from the effort
of chasing after areas of understanding that are unmappable
by the intellect.
All skeptics believe some body of knowledge is accurate
(or as accurate as it can be) — they have to
in order to have a reference by which they can judge
whether a particular opinion or belief measures up.
Whereas religious people can be skeptical — the
Creationists for example reject Darwinian evolution — this
is not true skepticism as it is merely the rejection
of a particular set of opinions because it happens
to contradict another set of opinions. A true skeptic
constantly questions his or her own basic premises,
something that a religious adherent is not supposed
to do for it is likely to lead to a crisis of faith.
So any system of knowledge which doubts itself is a
candidate for a skeptic's foundation beliefs. This
short article will focus on scientific skepticism.
Scientific skepticism is, of course, an ideal. In reality,
scientists, like the rest of us, blindly accept a whole
host of beliefs, opinions and deductions on the assumption
that others have verified them. A physics undergraduate
needs to suspend much of her doubt whilst she is being
indoctrinated into the reality of this particular science
because there is just too much material for her to
check all by herself. And even if she does check some
aspects of it, how does she or indeed anyone know that
reality follows theory every time and in every circumstance?
We cannot know this, and so this is an important limit
to skepticism: it can never categorically dismiss an
anomalous event; it can only state rather nebulously
that it is unlikely to have happened.
Another serious problem with skepticism is that the
quality and quantity of doubt is subjective — the
level of "proof" we require to accept a particular
opinion or belief is itself an opinion or belief. Strictly
speaking, this renders skepticism as subjective as
many of the "kooky" beliefs it decries. Skepticism,
therefore, is not the high precision scientific tool
many skeptics present it as, but just a useful rule
of thumb for making sure we don't take too much of
our roadmaps for granted. We have to agree approximately
the burden of proof is necessary for an anomalous event
or process before we are willing to revise our worldview.
This should be fairly consistent across the board,
but in reality, scientists are likely to ask for almost
impossible amounts of corroborating evidence for events
or experiences that challenge their current world view,
whilst setting the hurdle quite low for anything that
already fits into their belief system. Although it
is understandable and very human to have a strong bias
towards your own particular worldview, logically it
should be absent from the process of skepticism.
In medicine, for example, a drug only has to show an
effect of just a few statistical percentage points
above that of a placebo to convince a board of doctors
to classify it as a proven and effective drug. Those
same doctors, however, would no doubt require a much
higher burden of proof for an alternative remedy such
as homeopathy (or, God forbid, spiritual healing… which
would probably require a personal testimony from the
Good Lord Himself, corroborated of course by His Entourage
of Heavenly Hosts). The reason for this is that scientists
are not cold logical computers, but human beings with
feelings and emotions which they naturally bring into
the scientific process. Human beings, when confronted
by something that could undermine their status, worldview
and job, are likely to put up vehement resistance (often,
unconsciously). That resistance masquerades as skepticism,
when in fact it hides an unpleasant emotional response… fear.
A classic example of this is when James
(The Un-Incredible) Randy challenged Uri Geller's
psychic powers that included spoon-bending. Randy's
basic premise was (and is) that psychic powers do not
exist as they cannot be described by our current laws
of physics. Geller must therefore, by definition (not
by experiment or observation), be faking his demonstrations.
The result was that Randy came up with the most idiotic,
facile and preposterous explanations of how Geller
could perpetrate this hoax. (In fact, many of his theories
take as much believing as the existence of the psychic
phenomena themselves!) This is NOT scepticism, because
he is not prepared to doubt the basic premises of science
itself in light of new experience. Geller satisfied
scientists at Stanford University that his psychic
powers were real by being able to statistically alter
the results of random physical processes which could
not be influenced otherwise. Randy, of course, could
not accept this because he is too emotionally involved
in retaining the scientific status quo and his career
as a professional debunker. He does not have a healthy
scepticism towards accepted scientific belief, but
rather accepts it on faith in much the same way that
a Creationist will not deviate from his belief that
the universe started on Sunday, 23rd October, 4004
BC. Randy, like any fanatical preacher, has set the
burden of proof for anything that would challenge his worldview impossibly high, and in this way cocoons
himself from any potential paradigm shift that would
sweep away everything that brings him a personal sense
of security. |
 |
What is ironic, however, is that the very science
that someone like Randi is so desperate to protect
is a product, many times over, of such major paradigm
shifts. Science has undergone several enormous changes
in the past in which it has had to reevaluate everything,
and no doubt this will happen again in the future.
That change is not continuous but, as is the case with
evolution, happens in sudden spurts followed by large
periods of relative calm. These revolutions were instigated
by great scientists and true skeptics who had the courage
to open-mindedly examine anomalous data and then trust
their gut instinct in reformulating the foundation
of science. This change is generally painful for most
other scientists because they have not gone through
the same creative processes, and cannot mitigate the
blow to their egos of realizing that they have been
wrong by at least being the person who invented the
new theory. Whilst true scepticism is important — there
are a lot of kooky things going on out there that are
easy to spot if you are vigilant — it can also
presents a serious impediment to experience and scientific
observation.
Doubt, as any psychologist or spiritual seeker knows,
can be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Even quantum physics
tells us that the mind of the observer has an effect
on what is observed. Sometimes, therefore, we are in
a position whereby "seeing is not believing",
but "believing is seeing". We have to believe
in something before we can experience it. This is especially
true for those areas which involve greater participation
from our minds — such as health, spirituality,
psychic phenomena, psychology and sociology. Scepticism,
therefore, is not a complete tool (and may well be
counter-productive) in these highly subjective areas
and so should be used with caution. In healing, for
example, the placebo effect is very different for different
remedies, in different situations and for different
people (sometimes the effect is enormous… much
larger than orthodox medicine would like to admit)
and so, rather than trying to eliminate it using standard
double blind trials, researchers should concern themselves
with methods to maximise it (after all, proven medications
don't always work for everybody, every time, either). |
|
Of course, if you are merely using scepticism to
cover up your fear and insecurity concerning the unpredictability,
undefinability and/or uncontrollability of reality,
then these are precisely the areas at which you will
take pot shots, for they challenge your security the
most. They are also the easiest to intellectually dismiss
from a materialist point of view because they contain
a large subjective element. Take out that "mind" element,
in the name of science of course, and you effectively
dismember these phenomena. So if you are narrow-minded,
conceited and fearful (because you have conveniently
projected your shadow on these "dangerous" alternatives),
then becoming a blanket "dismisser" of all
forms of alternative health, psychic powers and spiritual
belief is the easiest way for you to allay some of
your immediate fears. Some might even believe that
you are intelligent for doing so. (But it certainly
isn't a long term solution!)
If you ever have a chance, try to have an interaction
with a leading sceptic. You will be surprised to find
that they generally have the same manner and fanaticism
of a southern state preacher; they are far from the
rational Spock-like scientist they believe themselves
to be. I recently had an exchange with a Stephen Barrett
at QuackWatch who
I chided for dismissing a particular treatment program
on the strength of just one recommendation that included
organic food, and another regime that was not even
followed (so the fact that the patient died was immaterial).
Barrett's reply to this was that he had a file "a
foot thick" on this clinic and that I should basically
take his "learned" word on this one. (For him
to come up with this astonishing weak critique on the
basis of "a foot thick" file, is actually a
strong ratification for this alternative treatment!)
Astonishingly, all he could conclude was that "I
have the information that I need to conclude that [so
and so] is not trustworthy." As he is not a true
sceptic, he can only express personal sentiments rather
than a response based on proper reason. |
|
In actuality, personal sentiment or feeling is an
increasingly important mode of discernment in these
mind-ful areas. So in an amusing way, Barrett is very
honest in presenting his reasons as as pure sentiment
when rationally pinned to the wall (an honesty I am
sure he would deny!). Discernment is still essential
in these subjective areas, but the discernment itself
needs to become somewhat subjective to match, and so
becomes less objectively meaningful. In other words,
our discernment in matters such as health, psychic
powers, psychology and spirituality applies primarily
to ourselves. We are, therefore, the best judge as
to the course of treatment we should take, which is
why any good doctor leaves all difficult decisions
up to the patient or uses a form of kinesiology to
find what the patient himself really wants. It is difficult
to judge or comment upon another person's decisions
in these areas for we are not in their skin.
We should, therefore, be very sceptical at any attempt
by individuals to objectively lay down rules, laws
and perspectives on ourselves or a group in these subjective
areas because to do so invalidates individual discernment
— our own process of scepticism. People are often
afraid to assert their own discernment because it might
lead to expulsion from the group or dire physical,
mental or spiritual consequences (manufactured no doubt
to prevent desertion). It is important, therefore,
to be as sceptical as we can about religions, cults,
and psychological systems (such as Landmark, Scientology,
scientific fundamentalism etc.) which attempt to eradicate
members' sceptical inquiry by defining doubt itself
as a pathological element. Doubt is natural and healthy,
and provided that it is not used as an avoidance mechanism
to open-mindedness, can be a useful and loyal ally. |
| |
| |
|
|
| "Scepticism
is the beginning of faith." |
| Oscar
Wilde |
| |
| |
| |
| Andrew Paterson is an independent writer currently living in London. He has no affiliation to any religious or political organisation. To contact him, please email . |
|
