Scientific skepticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a scientific or practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term is most commonly applied to the examination of claims and theories which appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather than to the routine discussions and challenges among scientists. Scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism, which questions our ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how we perceive it. Scientific skepticism utilizes critical thinking and inductive reasoning while attempting to oppose claims made which lack suitable evidential basis. The New Scepticism described by Paul Kurtz is scientific scepticism. [1]

Contents

[edit] Characteristics

Like a scientist, a scientific skeptic attempts to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability rather than accepting claims on faith, anecdotes, or relying on unfalsifiable categories. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. This distinguishes the scientific skeptic from the professional scientist, who often concentrates their inquiry on verifying or falsifying hypotheses created by those within their particular field of science. Scientific sceptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that such claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.

The following is a definition of scientific skepticism from Skeptic magazine:

What does it mean to be a skeptic? Some people believe that skepticism is rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse skeptic with cynic and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas—no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are skeptical, we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. Skeptics are from Missouri, the "show me" state. When we hear a fantastic claim we say, "that's nice, prove it."...Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such theories concerning the origins and dissemination of language, gravity waves, or the diet of Tyrannosaurus Rex have been tested but results are inconclusive, so we continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a less provisional conclusion.


Popular targets of criticism among skeptics include psychics, parapsychology, dowsing, astrology, homeopathy, tarot reading, alien abductions, and ESP, which sceptics allege are pseudosciences or unsupported by existing evidence.[2] Skeptics such as James Randi have become famous for debunking claims related to some of these. Many skeptics are atheists or agnostics, and have a naturalistic world-view, however some committed skeptics of pseudoscience including Martin Gardner express belief in a God.[3]

From a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability, Occam's Razor, and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results. Skepticism is part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.[4]

By the principles of skepticism, the ideal case is that every individual could make his own mind up on the basis of the evidence rather than appealing to some authority, skeptical or otherwise.

[edit] Perceived dangers of pseudoscience

Skepticism is an approach to strange or unusual claims where doubt is preferred to belief, given a lack of conclusive evidence. Skeptics generally regard it as misguided to believe in UFOs and psychic powers if no empirical evidence exists supporting such phenomena. The Ancient Greek philosopher Plato believed that to release another person from ignorance despite their initial resistance is a great and noble thing. Modern skeptical writers address this question in a variety of ways.

Bertrand Russell argued that individual actions are based upon the beliefs of the person acting and if the beliefs are unsupported by evidence then such beliefs can lead to destructive actions. [5] James Randi also often writes on the issue of fraud. On a case by case basis, he attempts to show how some promoters of pseudoscience make money from their claims, while secretly knowing them to be false, which is generally known as a "profit motive". Critics of alternative medicine often point to bad advice given by unqualified practitioners, leading to serious injury or death. Richard Dawkins points to religion as a source of violence, and considers creationism a threat to biology. Some skeptics support opposition to some cults and new religious movements because of their concern about what they consider false miracles performed or endorsed by the leadership of the group.[6] They often criticize belief systems which they believe to be idiosyncratic, bizarre or irrational. See also Allegations against cults made by skeptics.

[edit] Famous skeptics and skeptical organizations

Main article: List of Skeptics and skeptical organizations

[edit] Magazines

[edit] Television programs

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Kurtz, Paul (1992). The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge. Prometheus Books, 371. 0879757663. 
  2. ^ "Skeptics Dictionary Alphabetical Index Abracadabra to Zombies". skepdic.com (2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-27.
  3. ^ HANSEN, George P. (1992). "CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview". Retrieved on 2007-05-27.
  4. ^ Wudka, Jose (1998). "What is the scientific method?". Retrieved on 2007-05-27.
  5. ^ Russell, Bertrand (1907). "On the Value of Scepticism". he Will To Doubt. Positive Atheism. Retrieved on 2007-05-27.
  6. ^ Langone, Michael D. (June 1995). Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse. W. Norton. American Family Foundation., 432. 0393313212. 

[edit] Further reading

  • Randi, James (June 1982). Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions. Prometheus Books, 342. 0345409469. 
  • Randi, James; Arthur C. Clarke (1997). An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural. St. Martin's Griffin, 336. 0312151195. 
  • Sagan, Carl; Ann Druyan (1997). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Ballantine Books, 349. 0345409469. 
  • Gardner, Martin (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Dover Publications, 373. 0486203948. 

[edit] External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
v • d • e
Skepticism
Types
Moral · Scientific · Philosophical · Religious · Local · Environmental · Pyrrhonian · Cartesian
Skeptical hypotheses
Responses
Related articles
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism"
Personal tools