Is skepticism always logical?

PIT2

Is it always logical to be skeptical of something?

What about when it concerns alien-controlled ufo's or paranormal phenomena?
And what about the roundness of the earth?

out of whack

It is logical to doubt the truth of a claim that has not been shown to be true.

The converse approach is to have faith in unsubstantiated claims. This is not logical simply due to the lack of any foundation that makes it logical.

dontdisturbmycircles

Maybe until it is proven.. yes, I would say so.

Thrice

Well not if you also like believing in junk.

Pythagorean

I would say logic and skepticism are independent of each other.

A lot of people like to convince you that they're rational just because they're skeptics

Garth

Never forget to be sceptical about your scepticism.

Garth

Tony11235

I agree with Pythagorean. The two are separate. One can be skeptical, but one's reasons for being skeptical are what determine whether it is logical.

out of whack

Different but not independent, there is a direct connection. It is necessary to be skeptical of a unsupported claim if you want to apply logic. If you don't apply any doubt to a claim in the absence of evidence then you cannot say that you are using logic. Call it "faith" instead, something else entirely.


Can you prove it?

I don't doubt that it happens (oops!) but it doesn't follow that skepticism is unnecessary to logic.

DaveC426913

Absolutely. I have a son who sees corruption everywhere. He is highly skeptical, yet has little logic to back it up. I see it as an emotional reaction to a highly complex and confusing world.

Pythagorean

here's an example from someone on a different forum http://iwforums.com/showthread.php?t=3601

True Scientific Skepticism is supposed to be critical and analytical, but I often see people wear this guise to look more intelligent. The difference, I think, is between casual skepticism and scientific skepticism.

It can also be said that in some instances, scientific skepticism has slowed down the scientific process, because the skeptics (even though they were being rational) were being rational about the wrong things.

I think this is most evident in the development of both quantum physics and optics.

out of whack

Yes, scientific progress requires not only logic but also imagination and creativity. People are built in such a way that those with a proclivity for one often lack a proclivity for the other. Few are blessed with a good balance of both. Someone here has a good signature about how all progress depends on the unreasonable man because the reasonable man is not the one who tries to change the world.

Tony11235

It seems a lot of people lack the ability to distinguish good skepticism from bad skepticism. I continually have arguments with my Dad who doesn't see the difference and thinks that being skeptical automatically limits your ability to discover anything new, while I try to tell him that it actually helps us discover more. Perhaps he's encountered too many dumb skeptics in his life.

out of whack

I'll add a general clarification: skepticism is not rejection, doubting is not denying. It just means that you cannot reach a logical conclusion. And it works both ways: there is no more logic in rejecting without reason as there is in accepting without reason.

PIT2

Suppose 'something' has not been proven to be true, but nevertheless every piece of information with regard to that 'something' (for example eyewitness accounts) suggest that the 'something' IS true.

Is it logical to then be skeptical to the point where one still thinks its more plausible that the 'something' is not what the information indicates it to be, but that it is actually something else that does not match the information, but which has been proven to exist?

Hurkyl

I really like Sirlin's description of this phenomenon. Partly because I like his writing style, and partly because I think he doesn't try and portray one kind of person as being better than the other.

out of whack

Your comments beg for the definition of a proof. Essentially, a proof is nothing more than a convincing argument. Since arguments can be more or less convincing, proofs have different degrees of strength. When you say that something has not been proven to be true you are saying that no convincing argument has been provided. And of course depending on the nature of the 'something' in question, eyewitness accounts may or may not constitute proof. Even more frustrating is that the same argument can constitute sufficient proof to one but not to the other.

The logic lies in the reasoning process after the argument has been presented. If the argument is convincing to you then logically you should accept the claim. If not then you should remain skeptical.

Pythagorean

I agree that's how skepticism is designed (and even practiced by a few) but in the real world, people generally assume the role of skeptic because they don't like something. They argue adamantly against something rather than stating it's inconclusive, and then they throw in Occam's razor.

For instance, string theory. I have no faith in it, personally. Will I argue with string theorists? Absolutely not. I use Occam's razor so that I can "cut the fat" in my own work. I take the "simplest explanation that yields the same results" because it's less work. (i.e. I use Newton's laws in some cases, ignoring relativity and quantum because it's affects are negligible). But if I have an idea that I think will work to make new predictions, than Occam's razor is a moot point. It's not an effective tool for argument in this case.

Whether string theory will ever be capable of new predictions, I cannot say. I don't understand string theory, and I will probably never take the time to understand it, so I will never be able to debunk it.

On the other hand, if I just leave string theorists alone, there's a chance (because of my lack knowledge of it) they might actually come up with a testable theory that makes new, concrete predictions.