Skepticism, not Cynicism- For a World Dependent on Intellectual Inquiry
“Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good ground for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.”
- Bertrand Russell, in "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish" in Unpopular Essays (1950)
Skepticism is derived from the word skepsis, which means inquiry, examination, or investigation of a perception. More specifically, scientific skepticism refers to a method of systematic doubt used to objectively examine a premise, usually on the basis of empirical evidence, wherever possible. It is about cultivating critical habits of mind to weigh evidence. Scientific skepticism is a balance between being open to new ideas and being skeptical of claims that lack supporting evidence.
Holding skeptical views about science in the media and the accuracy of claims is central to critical thinking, sound reasoning, and life-long learning. With the ubiquity of various genres of media, users are actively engaged in the creation, dissemination, and evaluation of science (and pseudoscience) news on a global scale. Quantity does not equal quality of information and it can be challenging for an average person to consider multiple perspectives and distinguish the reliable from the meritless.
Why do conspiracy theories and other unfounded beliefs remain widespread in modern society?
When confronted with extraordinary claims, such as psychic powers, alien abduction, or cryptozoology, to list a few, we should raise the evidential bar much higher than usual. Systemic skepticism here acts as a filter. Some false beliefs might seep through the filter; therefore, subjecting those claims to rigorous scientific scrutiny requires analytical thinking, motivation, and epistemic rationality based on logic and evidence.
Analytical Thinking:
Individuals who rely less on analytical thinking skills may be more susceptible to irrational beliefs that do not hold if subjected to careful scrutiny [1]. They may be less able to identify weak evidence and would therefore be less skeptical of anecdotal evidence (Loch Ness monster, aliens, Big Foot) [1]. However, research suggests that having analytical skills is not enough, unless it is coupled with strong motivation to scrutinize persuasive messages [1]. We are exposed to an overwhelming amount of information every day, making it hard for the brain to process it all. In the absence of motivation, people rely instead on heuristic thinking. Heuristics reduce the cognitive load, but they might also compromise decision-making.
Research has demonstrated that when people do not rely on analytical thinking, they are more likely to develop false beliefs such as the paranormal and various conspiracy theories [2, 3, 4, 5]. Weak analytical skills contribute to espousing unfounded beliefs, which tend to have a strong intuitive appeal. Although we generally believe that we control our thoughts, much of our thinking relies on intuitions rather than analytical thinking. Therefore, we are less likely to apply objective, rational judgments which require effort and time. We otherwise predominantly rely on the intuitive mind, making us less skeptical towards ideas supported only by anecdotal evidence.
For example, one might choose products labeled non-GMO in an attempt to lead a healthy lifestyle, despite the lack of evidence that GMOs pose a threat to our health or the environment [6]. The preference for the ‘natural’ is a health-related heuristic that informs people’s perceptions of health. The absence of skepticism has led to the blind acceptance of claims that GMO products are toxic. A scientific skeptic does not have to evaluate the claims about the toxicity of GMOs; it is enough for a rational skeptic to realize that the burden of proof lies on proponents of GMOs to provide evidence to their claims. Science does not ‘prove’ that GMOs are safe. Science provides evidence that there is no significant risk. Without skepticism, we are allowing profitable and risky claims to persist.
Motivated Reasoning:
Scientific skepticism is also influenced by motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning is a general bias in reasoning when people favor a certain idea or conclusion. A study by Kahan et al. (2017) shows that people with high cognitive ability (numeracy) performed better when presented with a problem that requires drawing inferences from empirical data compared to less mathematically competent participants [7]. Contrary to predictions, the same participants exhibited increased polarization when presented with data related to a political issue. The subjects used their quantitative reasoning capacities to confirm their already held political outlooks. Thus, strong analytical skills may not be sufficient. They need the critical thinking skills to pursue informed decision-making rather than belief confirmation fueled by motivated reasoning.
Epistemic Rationality:
Epistemic rationality, how well your beliefs match the actual structure of the world, can serve as a shield against unfounded, pseudoscientific beliefs. Valuing epistemic rationality increases the likelihood that an individual would use their analytical skills to objectively analyze the validity of a claim. Alternatively, if an individual does not value epistemic rationality, analytical thinking skills will have little effect on the rationality of their beliefs because these skills, by virtue of motivated reasoning, will likely be applied in pursuit of conclusions consistent with their previous beliefs.
Why should we favor scientific reasoning over other ways, such as believing what we would like to be true (confirmation bias) or blindly accepting what authority tells us (appeal to authority)?
Pseudoscientific beliefs can be benign (astrology) while others can have unfavorable consequences for individuals’ choices, particularly decisions related to public health (vaccine opponents). Imparting a skeptical outlook is more about critical thinking as opposed to discrediting specific beliefs. Skepticism rejects insubstantial evidence and prefers scientific inquiry (empirical evidence) for answering questions about the world. This approach does not mean that science can explain everything. It means that the burden of proof, as explained earlier, is on the one making the claim.
Not all ideas are equal. We are under no obligation to accept unsubstantiated claims. The degree of support of an idea changes when new evidence emerges. Critical thinking is the foundation of scientific skepticism because skeptics are aware of the limitations of science and that science and the scientific method cannot explain everything.
Why skepticism, not cynicism?
Cynicism is the general negative attitude about life. Cynical beliefs about science are characterized by closed-mindedness, distrust, intolerance, and negative views. People have generally mistaken a skeptic with a cynic where the habit of questioning ideas is viewed as a general pessimism about life. This misinterpretation of skepticism is common, mostly by people who associate it with arrogant intellectual superiority. Needless to say, skepticism and intellectual arrogance are not linked. Revealing the inaccuracy of poorly established claims does not mean that the person making the claim is morally or intellectually inferior. Insisting on the critical analysis of evidence is not cynicism. It is an awareness that our thinking is imperfect.
Many people fear or reject skepticism because it seems to be in conflict with hope and faith. They adopt a cynical approach to life as science discredits their deeply held beliefs. For many, skepticism reveals a world without purpose or meaning. However, skepticism does not undermine happiness, hope, or optimism. Otherwise, it would be cynicism in disguise. Saying that skepticism impairs happiness is like saying ‘truth’ impairs happiness. A person holding such a thought may ignore evidence that does not support the selective interpretation of life the way they imagine it to be.
Skepticism does not judge others and does not threaten human hopes and happiness. Skepticism, unlike cynicism, is not an attitude about life. It is a technique by which we avoid the pitfalls of our own thinking.
Healthy Skepticism
Most experts in different fields often spend a considerable amount of time debunking false beliefs and pseudoscience through research or using their social media accounts as a debunking platform. Debunking attempts to put forward the best available scientific evidence. Previous research shows that strongly held (false) beliefs tend to persist long after these beliefs have been discredited and despite evidence that contradicts it, a phenomenon known as belief perseverance or conceptual conservatism [8]. Paradoxically, attempts at debunking may strengthen those beliefs, a reaction known as the backfire effect. However, more recent research on debunking shows that despite the initial concerns about potential backfire effects to debunking efforts, there is evidence that corrections do typically improve the beliefs being corrected [9]. However, science communication and debunking are not enough because they are primarily practiced by experts in the field.
The antidote to misinformation, disinformation, and pseudoscience is education and healthy skepticism [10]. Skepticism as a methodology for assessing the merits of different claims requires practicing critical thinking because cognitive biases often impair our judgments. Everyone must be engaged to develop a skeptical, not cynical, way of thinking and to cultivate critical habits of mind. Probing ideas for flaws, bias, contradictory claims, or hidden meanings is imperative for evidence-based and informed personal decisions. The most challenging task is turning the skeptical lens on our personal lives as we are all biased in one way or another, inheriting dogmas that have been passed down from generation to generation.
Skepticism is an ongoing, self-correcting process. Self-awareness that we are selective skeptics encourages us to practice intellectual humility and be neutral and unbiased when dealing with topics that we have strong ideological beliefs about. Selective skepticism may occur because:
We do not always have time to evaluate every claim and we rely instead on what we would like to be true.
We might be skeptical of claims that contradict our beliefs while indirectly accepting claims consistent with our beliefs.
We hold beliefs based on emotional evaluation.
We have limited expertise in several areas that require specialization which restricts our ability to skeptically evaluate claims.
Paul Kurtz, a prominent scientific skeptic, describes supernatural beliefs as the ‘unsinkable rubber duck’. Despite skeptical criticism, they keep popping up in a slightly different narrative. The goal of skepticism should not be focused on debunking specific beliefs but rather on disseminating critical thinking and argumentation in today’s world of alternative facts and rampant pseudoscience. Skeptical reasoning helps us compensate for our inherent biases and it does not come naturally. Due to the limitations in our ability to consistently apply the methods of skepticism, developing a skeptical mindset requires practice.
Claims that are consistent with the canons of knowledge and rules of evidential support should be valued. It is only then that those beliefs are deserving of our trust.