Lately a lot of people are saying that issues of feminism, social justice, and equality should be considered skeptical issues. This statement is usually made in response to others that claim the exact opposite. The rhetoric from both sides is largely unhelpful as it misses the philosophical underpinnings of the issue.

Methdological/scientific skepticism (the long version of what we practice) is a philosophical theory concerning truth. It’s mainly about how to discover, know, and approach truth. Skeptics believe that through science and critical thinking (note, these two are NOT the same thing) we can come to conclusions which approach (but never reach) objectivity.

A good skeptic understands and can articulate:

* What evidence is (data that elevates one hypothesis over its competing hypotheses)

* How to rank evidence (knowing which kinds of data are stronger than others)

* What counts as confirmation of a hypothesis (this is pure logic; confirmatory evidence makes the hypothesis more likely to occur if/when it is observed)

* And some other stuff (too much to get into now, it would lead you into the murky depths of the philosophy of science)

Therefore, in order for a topic to be skeptical it must be something that a skeptic can apply these lessons to. Take Feminism for instance, for Feminism to be a skeptical topic, we must be able to gather evidence to support it, be able to rank that evidence, and also have a firm idea of what confirmation of Feminism would look like. And it’s precisely there that we run into a problem.

Here’s Dr. Richard Carrier’s definition of Feminism, “feminism is simply the belief that women should be treated as fairly as men.” There’s a fundamental problem lurking there for any Feminist who would argue that their beliefs are supported by/part of Skepticism, and it comes from one simple word: “should.”

The inclusion of the word “should” makes it impossible for evidence to confirm Feminism through the process of skepticism. As David Hume (one of the philosophical founders of our brand of skepticism) aptly put, “You can never derive an is from an ought.” Evidence is a statement of proposed fact (an is) whereas Feminism is a statement of what an individual should do (an ought). There is no logical way to connect the two. Any attempt to do so runs up against the Is-Ought problem.

The reason this occurs is because Feminism is a moral philosophy. It concerns itself with how human beings should act in order to be moral or bring about a moral society (where the justice in Social Justice comes from). Values and facts do not interact in a logical sense, and any attempt to marry the two requires another philosophy (such as Utilitarianism, Feminism, or any other moral philosophy) that is not part of the skeptical world view.

The fundamental of philosophy of feminism is essentially skeptically inert. We can’t touch it as skeptics, and it can’t touch us. One can be a skeptic and a feminist at the same time, they don’t contradict each other. Feminism is not a natural conclusion for a skeptic; the two are wholly unrelated. Sexism, on the other hand, is a different story.

Sexism is a claim of fact, it can be analyzed and confirmed (and disconfirmed) through skeptical processes. Sexism is simply the claim that men and women are favored in certain ways. I can look at statistics on the wage gap. I can dig through the numbers and see that women are victims of sexual violence disproportionately. I can find evidence of sexism and even debunk specific claims of sexism where they’re poorly substantiated (if and when that is the case). This is something of interest to feminists that skeptics can engage in, but that doesn’t mean that Feminism itself is a skeptical position to hold. It is essentially askeptical.

Skepticism can lead me to seeing where women are mistreated in society. It can show me the state of things, but it can’t tell me that what I observe is a problem that begs for resolution. As stated earlier, that step requires another philosophy, or as David Hume so eloquently put it, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” Without the passion to motivation action, a fact is just a fact.

Ultimately, topics of sexism are skeptical topics. We can lend aid to feminists, atheists, or any other philosophical bent by way of analyzing and verifying facts that they wish to be true. And, if those facts pass our scrutiny, we can assist them. We cannot, however, take up their cause on skeptical grounds. To Skepticism, Feminism is a fascinating concept that is out of reach unless factual claims are being made.

Where does this leave everyone?

* Feminists can be skeptics. There’s no contradiction there, but the things they say do not get a free pass (assuming they are factual and can be analyzed by our methodology).

* Anti-feminists who make claims about the non-existence of sexism are on shaky ground because they argue fact and not moral philosophy or values. You don’t see anti-Feminists saying they’re opposed to Egalitarianism (typically). Skeptics are poised to oppose them.

* People who say Feminism is not a skeptical topic are partially right. When feminists talk about instances of sexism, they’re doing something skepticism can engage with (and support or debunk). When they talk about morals and pass value judgments, that’s not something that skepticism can ever corroborate.

There’s another important thing to keep in mind. When I wrote about “Skepticism” being unable to do various things, I’m speaking about the philosophy itself. That philosophy says nothing about individual skeptics who are more than a philosophy; they can entertain multiple philosophies. So a skeptic who is also a feminist (like me) isn’t bound by any of these restrictions so long as they are clear about what hat they’re wearing at the moment.