Skeptics Vs. Non-Believers

I have been registered at this excellent site for only a couple of weeks and, in that time, I have been quite impressed with the level of debate and the multitude of opinions and theories that have been offered.  While some are very passionate about their subjects of choice, all are here to further the study of the paranormal.

“The shortest and surest way of arriving at real knowledge is to unlearn the lessons we have been taught, to remount first principles, and to take nobody’s word about them.”  Bolingbroke

Here's the problem with that premise, though:  skeptics are not necessarily non-believers.  Neither should they be separate from the paranormal community.  It is my contention that they are an integral part of the paranormal community.

If one looks up the words "skeptic" and "unbeliever" in the dictionary, simliarities are evident.

skeptic:  a person who habitually doubts, questions, or suspends judgment upon matters generally accepted; not easily persuaded or convinced; the philosophical doctrine that the truth of all knowledge must always be in question and that inquiry must be a process of doubting; a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing.

unbeliever:  one who does not believe; a doubter.

Taking both of these words in a generalized context, it is true that when someone is skeptical, it means that they do not believe the evidence or supportive fact being presented to them at that time and in that situation.  However, it does not indicate that a skeptic is a complete non-believer in the overall subject matter.  As you can see, the skeptic definition is much more open and diverse, while the unbeliever definition is finite and conclusive.

If we look at a thesaurus listing of these two words, you'll see what I'm referring to:

skeptic:  doubter, agnostic, dubitante, doubting Thomas, scoffer, Pyrrhonist, Humist

unbeliever:  disbeliever, infidel, faithless, atheist, nullifidian, minimifidian, secularist

Upon close observation of the two terms, you will almost immediately notice that while the skeptic listing is almost completely absent of religious connotation (barring the Huxley agnosticism addition and the doubting Thomas [as in Saint Thomas, the disciple] the unbeliever listing is, in contrast, nearly inundated with religious overtone.

I bring up this contrast simply to show the vast differences between those who doubt and those who do not believe.  I have been waging this war of words and definitions for a few years now and others are finally beginning to see the difference in comparison.

I am not a Humist.  David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish philosopher whose skepticism theory restricted knowledge merely to the experience of ideas and impressions, denying the possibility of ultimately verifying their truth.  This brand of skepticism should be ascribed to those who deny "proof" even when the mounting evidence is viewed as undeniable by the general community.

Neither am I a Pyrrhonist.  Pyrrho (365-275 B.C.) was the Greek Skeptic, who wrote the doctrine that all knowledge, including the testimony of the senses, is uncertain.  While I do agree that the testimony of the senses is uncertain, I do not subscribe to the school of thought that all knowledge is uncertain as well.

According to Wikipedia, skepticism falls into two separate categories:  philosophical and scientific (or empirical) skepticism.  In addition to these, there are two sub-categories:  activist and religious skepticism.

Philosophical skepticism can be traced to Pyrrhonism.  Its doctrine, that all knowledge is ultimately unsure, drives some to Humism as well.

By contrast, one who ascribes to scientific (or empirical) skepticism is:

"one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true, based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.  An empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge."

As for the sub-categories, religious skepticism merely points to a person who doubts all claims made by those of faith in a higher being, as well as any stories upheld by such faiths.

Activist skepticism is a relatively new term for a very old point of view in regards to the field of skepticism; these skeptics are generally labeled "debunkers".  Activist skepticism has become popular in recent times through the teachings of people like James Randi, although one of the most famous of all debunkers was none other than Harry Houdini who exposed many dozens of fraud mediums and paranormalists in his later life.

I believe in the necessity of skepticism as much as I believe in the supernatural.  I think it is absolutely imperative that we question what is experienced by others, because to accept everything at face value invites deception and fraud.

“He who has not a good memory, should never take upon him the trade of lying.”  Montaigne 

I am not insinuating that all paranormalists are lying about their findings, but let's be realistic; many paranormalists out there in the wide world are only in this emerging field for fame, money or both.  Yet even when the most altruistic of intentions are displayed and we accept what others are saying as purely fact, we venture closer to the point-of-no-return where we must accept virtually all claims, no matter how outlandish, lest we be labeled "selective" skeptics.

Bookmark: