• Home

Neural Gourmet

« Carnival of the Liberals #95
The big top has come down on Carnival of the Liberals »

A conversation on the nature of Skepticism

August 26, 2009 by Group

“What differentiates skeptics from non-skeptics?” or “What does it mean to be a skeptic” are questions that I think equally well sum up an interesting conversation I had on Twitter today with Daniel Loxton and Jim Lippard, with a valuable interjection by Liz Ditz.

Our conversation arose out of a much broader discussion on Objectivism and Skepticism. Daniel Loxton sees skepticism as a method of inquiry coupled with a specialized body of knowledge. I don’t think he’s wrong, but I think it goes further than this. I believe that what defines skepticism is not the scientific method or critical thinking, nor the subject matter which historically has been concerned with pseudoscience and the paranormal. Rather I think what truly defines the nature of skepticism and the skeptic is a moral position regarding veridical truth.

In short, I think most people are not so concerned with objective reality. That doesn’t mean they’re fabulists or idiots, but rather take a pragmatic approach to the “truth” which may or may not…

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Uncategorized |

  • Archives

    • February 2017
    • October 2013
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • March 2010
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: