Proportion belief with skeptical inquiry

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

I love the above quote. Go ahead and google it. I’ll wait.

No really. Please do.

Who said it? Did you get Aristotle? It certainly sounds like something Aristotle would say. The overall message is true, but this isn’t what Aristotle said. The above quote may be just a mixed-up version of what Aristotle said in his Nicomachean Ethics:

“… it is a mark of an educated person to look in each area for only that degree of accuracy that the nature of the subject permits. Accepting from a mathematician claims that are mere probabilities seems rather like demanding logical proofs from a rhetorician”(42).

The misattributed quote teaches us to be openminded but skeptical in two ways. First, the words of the message are sage advice. Second: applying this advice to the quote itself shows us the importance of skepticism.

To be exceptionally clear, this is in reference to questions of fact, but it has some overlap with questions of value or policy.

There are generally three types of definition of skepticism:

layman use, which just means “doubt” Philsophicial skepticism, which is akin to doubting that anything can be known/understood. Scientific skepticism, which is reasonable doubt that is in balance with the evidence and the extraordinariness of the fact-claim. This use of the term is what is meant throughout this Critical Thinking series. (See the Skeptics Guide to the Universe)

It shold also be noted that this form of skepticism doesn’t mean cynicism. It merely means balancing belief with evidence.

As David Hume (1711–1776; British Philosopher, who helped influence American founding fathers) wrote:

“A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. In conclusions that are based on an infallible experience, he expects the outcome with the highest degree of assurance, and regards his past experience as a full proof of the future existence of that outcome” (43).

Skepticism (as used here) merely means investing an amount of confidence/belief that is in proportion with the claim’s evidence and extraordinariness. It’s kind of like Justitia—the blindfolded Lady Justice holding a scale.

I really, really, really wanted a Wonder Woman Justitia. I couldn’t find one on the interwebz, so I sketched one. Image credit: Sgt Scholar (44). Not too shabby for the Internet, but it is definitely not tattoo quality.

In this modified metaphor of her, on one side of the scale is evidence, the other extraordinariness. The more evidence outweighs extraordinariness, then more belief may be ascribed. Extraordinariness includes factors like how well a claim aligns with the current understanding in a field, the possibility/plausibility of the claim, the credibility of the source, and the personal gains/losses at stake (e.g. is this person scamming me?) None of this has anything to do with cynicism as it is often equated. For example, I don’t believe people are throwing parties on a risqué 1970’s-themed moon base, but I wouldn’t complain if someone made this happen.

Image credit: a very cheesy, sexually charged UK 70’s Sci-Fi show called “UFO” about a moon base that defends Earth, with Gabrielle Drake and Antonia Ellis (45). If you think that’s weird but racy, you should see the fish-net uniforms from this show that both men and women wore.

It is also important to note that one can be so skeptical that it is no longer practical for the subject.

It is also possible to have so much doubt that it is no longer in the realm of skeptical inquiry, and instead deviates from skeptical doubt to contrarian doubt:

It all comes down to an honest comparison of the evidence and extraordinariness.

Remember what Winston Churchill said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on.” Just kidding. Though the phenomenon is true, this quote is also misattributed to him.

It is also important to remember that it is incredibly easy to fool ourselves, as we saw in the section on psychological and social influences. It is very easy to fool ourselves into thinking we are using healthy, scientific skepticism when really we are using contrarian doubt to willfully ignore evidence that disproves our preferred conclusions. This often goes hand in hand with abusing the deferment to expertise huerstic and cherry-picking fringe experts to support a preffered conclusion (such as vaccines cuasing autism, young Earth creationism, flat Earth, etc), while claiming other people are using the argument from authority fallacy. (Again, deferment to expertise does not equal argument from authority fallacy). As the adage goes, the easiest person to fool is ourselves. Because it is so easy to convince ourselves we are using healthy skepticism (and that the “others” are using contrarian denial), this is why critical thinking and science are systemtic modes of inquiry, analysis, and dialogue.

Click here to continue to the next section

Be sure to like, comment, share, and follow! Did you like this piece, but found you jumped into this series out of order? Click on the CTS+ button on the topic menu at the top to navigate. You can also use the topic buttons at the top to go to articles on other subjects.

Click here to support Sgt Scholar on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/sgtscholar