The Skeptic's Dictionary - by Robert Todd Carroll


Interviews

The Sydney Morning Herald ** Jan-Ove Sundberg "Nessie" interview ** Philosophers' Web Magazine


FAQ
(frequently asked questions)

The Skeptic's Dictionary

&
Guide for the New Millennium

Q. Are skeptic's skeptical of skepticism?

A. This question is often asked by those who think it is akin to Augustine's question "Can I doubt that I am doubting?" The answer is "No, if the doubter is Augustine or Descartes, but Yes if the doubter is Sargent or Glanville." (Read R.H. Popkin's History of Skepticism or The High Road to Pyrrhonism if you want to examine this issue in depth.)

Q. Can science answer all our questions?

A. No. Science can only answer empirical questions.

Q. Can science answer all empirical questions?

A. Yes, but many of the answers will be wrong.

Q. Are all skeptics atheists?

A. No. Some skeptics are atheists, some are agnostics and some are theists. In this regard, skeptics are like scientists and baseball players.

Q. Isn't skepticism a kind of religion with its own faith in science?

A. No. Skepticism is not a set of beliefs nor does it involve practicing any rituals, advocating any particular way of life, or worshipping anyone or any thing. The belief in science is not based on faith but on evidence. Furthermore, the belief in science is not unconditional. Scientific theories are always tentative and subject to modification, unlike religious dogmas. Science attempts to root out error, not perpetuate it by disallowing challenges to beliefs, as religions do.

Q. What do skeptic's believe in?

A. Skepticism is not a set of beliefs, so there may not be very many beliefs which are held by all skeptics. Even if there were, such beliefs might not reveal anything about skepticism, for these same beliefs may be held by many who are not skeptics.

Q. Are skeptic's more immoral than non-skeptics.

A. It depends on what you mean by 'immoral'. I guess we are if you consider it immoral to doubt the claims of people like Uri Geller, Edgar Cayce, Sai Baba, Charles Berlitz, J.Z. Knight, Frederick Lenz, L. Ron Hubbard, Joel D. Wallach, Deepak Chopra or Andrew Weil. I don't know of any studies, however, which show that skeptics commit more murders, rapes, robberies, or molest more children than non-skeptics.

Q. Do skeptics believe there is a reason for existing?

A. Some do. Some don't. I believe that any purpose to a person's life is given to that life by that person. In other words, if you choose to do meaningful things, your life is meaningful. If you choose to live a meaningless existence, then your life is meaningless.

Q. Why do you hate Amway?

A. I don't hate Amway. But I am still fascinated that the Amway entry in The Skeptic's Dictionary has been the most popular entry for three years running.

Q. Where did you get the saying "The only thing infinite is our capacity for self-deception."

A. I made it up. It's a hyperbole but I like the feeling it expresses.

Q. Do you think that logic and rational analysis can help you understand such things as love or laughter?

A. Yes, to a large extent, but as with anything requiring experience, the internal perspective is not reducible to that of the external observer. Feelings and moods can be studied scientifically, but there is a subjective element to all experience which transcends science. Transcending science is not the same, however, as transcending nature. Subjective experience does not transcend nature and to think that because something can't be reduced to the terms of an external observer one has opened the door to the supernatural is a delusion in my view.

Q. Skeptics are so negative. Why can't you be more positive?

A. Being negative can be very positive. Let me explain. There is a difference between being nihilistic and being negative in the sense of being cautious and critical before believing a claim or accepting an explanation for something. A nihilist denies the value of everything. To me, many religious people are nihilists since they deny the value of anything in this world. The leaders of religions often reject family, reproduction, the joys of the body, the pleasures of art and nature. Many saints reject this world and live as hermits or join monastic orders, rejecting human society. These are the real nihilists, the ones who are negative in a pathological way. Think of it this way: are you being "negative" when you tell a child not to play in the street or when you criticize a neighbor who sells pornography to children? Being critical and cautious, rejecting ideas, behaviors and beliefs, is often very positive in its effects.

Q. Real skeptics are agnostic; you have strong opinions and beliefs. How can you call yourself a skeptic?

A. It is true that the word 'skeptic' derives from the Greek word skeptikos (thoughtful or reflective), and a skeptic is often thought of as an inquirer, one who carefully considers things. And it is true that philosophical skepticism as advanced by the likes of the Pyrrhonists and Academic Skeptics focused on providing ways to cast doubt on any proposition. Their main concern seems to have been to demonstrate that there can be no absolute certainty. The most radical of Philosophical Skeptics maintain that one cannot even be certain that nothing is certain.

However, nothing in particular follows from accepting that apodictic claims are impossible to demonstrate. It does not follow, for example, that because nothing is certain one should suspend judgment on all claims and believe nothing. Nor does it follow that because nothing is certain one should follow the customs and traditional beliefs of one's society. Nor does it follow that because nothing is certain any belief is as good as any other belief. Nor does it follow that because nothing is certain every belief is an equal act of irrational faith. Though each of the above inferences has been drawn by various people, none of them is a valid logical inference from the proposition nothing is certain.

My choosing to believe some things and not believe others is not a direct consequence of my philosophical skepticism. I accept that nothing is certain, but the only thing that seems to follow from that is that none of my beliefs are absolutely certain, i.e., without possibility of error. Probabilities are the best we can hope for and probabilities seem to be sufficient for daily living and for science. Those who have a need for absolute certainty may not accept this but I believe their rejection of probability as sufficient for human purposes is based on feelings and emotions, not thought.

I hope it is obvious that by 'probability' I do not mean 'mathematical probability.' The mathematical probability that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow may be zero, but the probability upon which humans may reasonably rest their expectations is very, very high. Epistemologically speaking, I cannot say with absolute certainty that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. But, if I am driving east in the morning, I will bring my sunglasses and not feel in the least that I am acting on faith or that I could just as well get where I want to go by heading west.

Finally, the word 'skeptic' is used today to refer either to one who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions or one who doubts the existence of God and the claims of revelation or a philosophical skeptic, i.e., one who believes that absolute knowledge is impossible and that inquiry must be a process of doubting in order to acquire approximate or relative certainty. Each of these meanings is consistent with the practice of systematically rejecting as highly improbable occult, supernatural, paranormal and pseudoscientific claims.

Q. Real skeptics are open-minded; you are close-minded towards beliefs in the occult, supernatural and paranormal. How can you call yourself a skeptic?

Being open-minded does not mean that one has an obligation to examine every crackpot idea or claim made. I have spent years examining occult and supernatural claims. When someone says they've been abducted by aliens, but they have no physical evidence of their abduction, I feel no need to investigate the issue further. If their only proof is that they can't remember what happened to them for a few hours or days--a common claim by alleged abductees--then my hunch is that there is a natural explanation for their memory loss. For example, they're lying because they don't want anyone to know where they really were, or they passed out from natural or self-induced causes; they then dreamt or hallucinated.

When someone claims to be God or to hear voices he says come from God, I assume he is mistaken or a fraud. Am I close-minded? I don't think so. However, many years ago, when I heard for the first time about UFOs and alien abductions, I would have been close-minded had I not investigated the matters. I have also studied many cases of people who claimed to be gods or reincarnations of dead persons. So, when a young man in Texas who thinks he's a god shoots at federal agents, it neither surprises me nor does it instill in me any urge to investigate the man's divinity claim. Am I close-minded? Again, I don't think so. Once a person has studied an issue in depth, to be open-minded does not mean you must leave the door open and let in any harebrained idea that blows your way. Your only obligation is to not lock the door behind you. If someone claims to have alien body parts or vehicle parts, by all means let's examine the stuff. If someone is turning water into wine or raising the dead by an act of will, I'll be the first to reconsider my opinion about human divinities.

An open-minded person who is inexperienced and uninformed will need to be willing to investigate issues that an experienced and informed person need not pursue. An open-minded thinker must find things out for herself, but once she has found them out she does not become close-minded simply because her opinion is now informed! So, the next time you hear some defender of astral projection, past-life regression or alien abductions accuse a skeptic of being "close-minded," give thought to the possibility that the skeptic isn't close-minded. Perhaps she has arrived at an informed belief.

Q. Your arguments are always one-sided. You never give the arguments in favor of ESP, magick, miracles, or inventions which claim to violate the laws of nature. Why? To be fair, shouldn't you be giving both sides of the issue?

A. If I had written a different book, say one called A Critical Thinker's Approach to Weird Beliefs, my arguments would different. In that case, I would have presented the best arguments from any side on an issue and let the reader decide which argument, if any, to accept. But I didn't write that kind of book. I wrote a book which would provide the reader with the best skeptical arguments and references to the best skeptical literature on occult, supernatural, paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. Non-skeptical materials on these matters are abundant. My purpose is to provide some balance in an otherwise unbalanced publishing world.

Q. What good is skepticism? Really, what value is there in being skeptical?

Carl Sagan's essay on the Boloney Detection Kit in The Demon-Haunted World says it best. I think skepticism is most valuable when seeking and evaluating information. Recently, I have been researching mental illness, especially depression and bipolar disorder. One book I'm reading is by a psychiatrist, another by an M.D. The psychiatrist is an active researcher and practitioner; the M.D. did not do an internship after graduating from Harvard Medical School, but went to India for several years on some sort of spiritual quest. The M.D., Andrew Weil, is famous, the psychiatrist is not. The M.D. has his own public television specials, his own WWW page and a couple of best-selling books. The one I looked at is called Spontaneous Healing. There is one page devoted to depression in the book. The author says something like "the only thing I’ve ever seen which works for depression is" and then he lists a few vitamins, minerals and amino acids, as well as aerobic exercise. He gives no reasons as to why these remedies might work. The reader must believe on faith that they do.

The psychiatrist, on the other hand, lists dozens of physical disorders whose effects mimic those of depression. I am led to believe that some people might appear to be depressed because of a vitamin or mineral deficiency or because of lack of exercise. I am also led to believe that real depression is a neurochemical problem of extreme complexity. The psychiatrist cites research and case studies, and makes arguments to support his points.

I am skeptical of Dr. Weil’s claim. To accept on faith what he says could prove disastrous. Doubting claims which might prove harmful seems to be one good reason for being skeptical.

A person I know claims he is being followed by the FBI and the CIA. He claims license plates which begin with a 5 are bad and the drivers of such vehicles are out to get us. I am skeptical of these claims because this person is insignificant and is likely to be of no interest to any government agency except perhaps the IRS. He has no explanation for how the bad guys all have license plates which start with the same number. I have no good reasons for believing his claims. They are most likely false and the result of delusions caused by an imbalance in his brain chemistry. Being skeptical of his claims keeps me from accepting falsehoods and delusional notions whose value is dubious at best.

But why a general skepticism regarding supernatural, occult or paranormal claims? Basically the same reasons as given above: requiring evidence and arguments for claims, not taking claims on faith, rejecting delusional notions because of their dubious truth and practical value, distinguishing between competent and incompetent argument and research, and accepting as probable those claims which are supported by solid evidence, seem imminently reasonable and practical.

In fact, I find it appalling that anyone would wonder why I choose not to base my beliefs on wishes, desires, hopes, falsehoods, delusions, fantasies, fictions and deceptions.

Furthermore, the value of skepticism can be seen by examining history. The Inquisition and the Holocaust were the result of arrogance and dogma. A religious or political institution governed by skeptics would be much more humane and healthy than one governed by arrogant dogmatists. Both toleration and modern scientific methodologies emerged from seventeenth century British Empiricism, which, at its core, rejected the Rationalist's love of metaphysics and demand for absolute certainty. Few of us are well-served by politicians who proclaim, as California governor Pete Wilson did, that he is "absolutely certain" that a man committed the crimes of rape and murder for which he was convicted 16 years ago. Thomas Martin Thompson may be guilty of rape and murder. He may even deserve to die. But no one, not even Pete Wilson, can be absolutely certain Thompson committed those crimes.

Q. Didn't Descartes, with his cogito ergo sum, prove that at least some things are absolutely certain, e.g,, that I exist?

A. Descartes thought he proved that it is absolutely certain that God exists and a whole lot of other things. See his Meditations on First Philosophy. Many of the claims which Descartes claimed were absolutely certain are referred to as analytic claims: their truth is a matter of convention and depends entirely upon semantics or syntax, not empirical discovery. Other claims Descartes thought were absolutely certain, such as the claim that "God exists," are neither absolutely certain nor analytic. "2+2=4" is true for certain definitions of '2', '+' '=" and '4' and false for other definitions, e.g., adding 2 raindrops to 2 raindrops does not give 4 raindrops, and mixing 2 liters of water with 2 liters of alcohol does not yield 4 liters of liquid. Words or signs rarely have meanings independent of other words and signs. Whether a statement is true or not depends upon what it means and what it means depends upon its context, especially the context of its interconnectedness with other words or signs, and the background against which the meaning of the words and signs are learned.

Q. How do you get out of bed in the morning? I mean, if you have no faith, what can you hope for? If you can't pray to God, how can you deal with life's tragedies? If you can't believe in fairies, ghosts and magical things like crystals and mermaids, how can life be interesting for you? Yours seems to be a cold, dull, sad existence void of any magic.

A. I suppose I could just stay in bed and delude myself that I actually am up and about, that I shot a 64 at Pebble Beach, that I discovered a cure for cancer, that my parents are still alive in another town and that I brokered the first long-lasting peace in the Middle East. Even though I could delude myself into believing that it is possible that my delusions are not really delusions, would I thereby make my life "magical"? Would my false hope be better than no hope at all? I don't think so.

I have faced my share of life's sufferings and troubles, some of them when I was young and believed in God, but most of them when I was older and an atheist. I can't say that belief in God made it any easier, much less that it gave me hope in a time of need. Knowing that others have suffered more than I have and that one cannot live without expecting a fair amount of pain and suffering, gives me more solace than belief in God. I would wonder, if I believed in God, why such cruelty and misery are allowed. I would not be comforted by the notion that it is a mystery but surely it is for some good reason. Why should such an idea comfort me? If your government took away your only child and told you it was for a good reason, would that comfort you? If I believed that God was allowing excessive misery for some good reason, that would make it more, not less, difficult for me to accept it.

There is nothing dull about a life without fairies, Easter bunnies, devils, ghosts, magic crystals, etc. Life is only boring to boring people. True, it is difficult to enjoy the simple pleasures of a walk in the park or a trip to the beach when your best friend has just been murdered. It is impossible to enjoy a good book or study a new subject in depth to expand one's knowledge when your house and all your worldly possessions have just been destroyed by fire. The joy of traveling is extinguished by being robbed. You cannot control the murderer, the lightning, the thief. But you may be able to control how you respond to them. You may not be able to overcome grief alone, and having a loving companion and family makes it easier to deal with life's tragedies. I must say, however, that I have not seen the evidence that theists deal with human suffering any better than atheists do. How we face suffering has more to do with our character, our biology and our luck than it does with our belief or disbelief in magic or higher powers.

R. T. Carroll - July 31, 1997

further reading


The Skeptic's Dictionary
by
Robert Todd Carroll