Scientific skepticism
Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking scientific evidence. In practice, the term most commonly refers to the examination of claims and theories that appear to be unscientific, rather than the routine discussions and challenges among scientists. Scientific skepticism differs from philosophical skepticism, which questions humans' ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how they perceive it, and the similar but distinct methodological skepticism, which is a systematic process of being skeptical about the truth of one's beliefs.
The skeptical movement is a contemporary social movement based on the idea of scientific skepticism. The movement has the goal of investigating claims made on fringe topics and determining whether they are supported by empirical research and are reproducible, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge".
Roots of the movement date at least from the 19th century, when people started publicly raising questions regarding the unquestioned acceptance of claims about spiritism, of various widely held superstitions, and of pseudoscience.
Publications such as those of the Dutch Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij also targeted medical quackery. Using as a template the Belgian organization founded in 1949, Comité Para, Americans Paul Kurtz and Marcello Truzzi founded the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, in Amherst, New York, in 1976. Now known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, this organization has inspired others to form similar groups worldwide.
Overview
Scientific skeptics maintain that empirical investigation of reality leads to the most reliable empirical knowledge, and suggest that the scientific method is best suited to verifying results. Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability; they discourage accepting claims which rely on faith or anecdotal evidence.Paul Kurtz described scientific skepticism in his 1992 book The New Skepticism, calling it an essential part of scientific inquiry. The Skeptics Society describes it as "the application of reason to any and all ideas—no sacred cows allowed." Robert K. Merton introduced Mertonian norms, which assert that all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny. Kendrick Frazier said that scientific skeptics have a commitment to science, reason, evidence, and the quest for truth. Carl Sagan emphasized the importance of being able to ask skeptical questions, recognizing fallacious or fraudulent arguments, and considering the validity of an argument rather than simply whether we like the conclusion. Similarly, Steven Novella described skepticism as selecting "beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient" and as the study of "pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves". Brian Dunning called skepticism "the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.
Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori'' grounds—rather they argue that one should critically examine claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity. From a scientific point of view, skeptics judge ideas on many criteria, including falsifiability, Occam's Razor, Morgan's Canon and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results.
Skepticism in general may be deemed part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.
The Sci.Skeptic FAQ characterizes the skeptic spectrum as divided into "wet" and "dry" skeptics, primarily based on the level of engagement with those promoting claims that appear to be pseudoscience; the dry skeptics preferring to debunk and ridicule, in order to avoid giving attention and thus credence to the promoters, and the "wet" skeptics, preferring slower and more considered engagement, in order to avoid appearing sloppy and ill-considered and thus similar to the groups all skeptics opposed.
Ron Lindsay has argued that while some non-scientific claims appear to be harmless or "soft targets", it is important to continue to address them and the underlying habits of thought that lead to them so that we do not "have a lot more people believing that 9/11 was an inside job, that climate change is a hoax, that our government is controlled by aliens, and so forth—and those beliefs are far from harmless".
Skeptical movement
With regard to the skeptical social movement, Daniel Loxton refers to other movements already promoting "humanism, atheism, rationalism, science education and even critical thinking" beforehand.He saw the demand for the new movement—a movement of people called "skeptics"—as based on a lack of interest by the scientific community to address paranormal and fringe-science claims. In line with Kendrick Frazier, he describes the movement as a surrogate in that area for institutional science.
The movement set up a distinct field of study, and provided an organizational structure, while "the long-standing genre of individual skeptical writing" lacked such a community and background.
Skeptical organizations typically tend to have science education and promotion among their goals.
The skeptical movement has had issues with allegations of sexism. Mary Coulman identified a disparity between women and men in the movement in a 1985 skeptic newsletter. The skeptic movement has generally been made up of men; at a 1987 conference the members there discussed the fact that the attendees were predominantly older white men and a 1991 listing of 50 CSICOP fellows included four women. Following a 2011 conference, Rebecca Watson, a prominent skeptic, raised issues of the way female skeptics are targeted with online harassment including threats of sexual violence by opponents of the movement, and also raised issues of sexism within the movement itself. While she received some support in response to her discussion of sexism within the movement, she later became a target of virulent online harassment, even from fellow skeptics, after posting an online video that discussed her discomfort with being propositioned in a confined space. This became known as "Elevatorgate", based on Watson's discussion about being propositioned in a hotel elevator in the early morning after a skeptic event.
Debunking and rational inquiry
The verb "to debunk" is used to describe efforts by skeptics to expose or discredit claims believed to be false, exaggerated, or pretentious. It is closely associated with skeptical investigation or rational inquiry of controversial topics such as U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, cryptids, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, or exploratory or fringe areas of scientific or pseudoscientific research.Further topics that scientifically skeptical literature questions include health claims surrounding certain foods, procedures, and alternative medicines; the plausibility and existence of supernatural abilities or entities ; the monsters of cryptozoology ; as well as creationism/intelligent design, dowsing, conspiracy theories, and other claims the skeptic sees as unlikely to be true on scientific grounds.
Skeptics such as James Randi have become famous for debunking claims related to some of these. Paranormal investigator Joe Nickell cautions, however, that "debunkers" must be careful to engage paranormal claims seriously and without bias. He explains that open minded investigation is more likely to teach and change minds than debunking.
A striking characteristic of the skeptical movement is the fact that while most of the phenomena covered, such as astrology and homeopathy, have been debunked again and again, they stay popular. Frazier reemphasized in 2018 that "e need independent, evidence-based, science-based critical investigation and inquiry now more than perhaps at any other time in our history."
The scientific skepticism community has traditionally been focused on what people believe rather than why they believe—there might be psychological, cognitive or instinctive reasons for belief when there is little evidence for such beliefs. According to Hammer, the bulk of the skeptical movement's literature works on an implicit model, that belief in the irrational is being based on scientific illiteracy or cognitive illusions. He points to the skeptical discussion about astrology: The skeptical notion of astrology as a "failed hypothesis" fails to address basic anthropological assumptions about astrology as a form of ritualized divination. While the anthropological approach attempts to explain the activities of astrologers and their clients, the skeptical movement's interest in the cultural aspects of such beliefs is muted.
According to sociologist David J. Hess, the skeptical discourse tends to set science and the skeptical project apart from the social and the economic. From this perspective, he argues that skepticism takes on some aspects of a sacred discourse, as in Emile Durkheim's Elementary Forms of the Religious Life—Science, seen as pure and sacred, is set apart from popular dealings with the paranormal, seen as profane ; obscuring the confrontation between science and religion. Hess states as well a strong tendency in othering: both skeptics and their opponents see the other as being driven by materialistic philosophy and material gain and assume themselves to have purer motives.