“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…
