[ POLL ] What is "too much" skepticism?

Post Reply New Topic

This poll is to see how others might define "too much" skepticism.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "skepticism" as:

1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

2a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain

2b: the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)

You may select up to 10 options in the poll, and you may change your selections at any time. There is no expiry date for answering the poll.

Thank you.

Option 2, Option 4 5
And Other: when someone insists on proclaiming a cynical conspiracy theory when mundane incompetence and venality without conspiracy can explain the same events satisfactorily.

3 and 7 for me; 7 is a no Brainer.
3 Requires a bit more deeper thought.

For me - none of the above.
Too much scepticism is when doubting everything - including e.g. existence of yourself - renders you unable to function.

When someone denies "facts-in-your-face" in favor of a conspiracy theory, that someone is certainly overly skeptical.

Left unchecked, my skepticism can run rampant. My guideline for myself is to not let my skepticism sabotage relationships I would like to nurture. Sometimes that means letting people have their misconceptions and delusions unchallenged.

When one assumes every action by everybody has the intent to fool people

I think to sum up my opinion, basically it's too much if you refuse to listen to or be swayed by actual, provable facts. Though there comes a point where requiring proof becomes excessive - for example you don't need research studies and stuff to determine that you (most likely) won't die of food poisoning if you go to your local pizza joint tonight. I'm not entirely sure where the line between reasonable and excessive proof is, though.

Personally I would separate skepticism with a k from scepticism with a c. A sceptic is someone who doubts, and a skeptic is someone who requires evidence, supports robust statistical analysis, believes in the rigorous application of the scientific method, and so forth. So a conspiracy theorist is a sceptic but not a skeptic.

A skeptic believes in the power of vaccines as proven by huge amounts of evidence. A skeptic believes that climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions presents a medium-term threat to the natural world and will render some areas much less suitable for human life. A skeptic believes GMOs are as safe as unmodified crops, does not believe in any deities, and that humans share common ancestry with all known life on Earth.

I suppose skepticism could become a problem if it interfered with your life, or if it stopped you from making an urgent decision that didn't have much evidence behind it.

^ Ever read Sloterdijk?

(I’m thinking of Critique of Cynical Reason: not the same as your post, but I think there’s a minimal element of conceptual parallelism)

'A skeptic is someone who requires evidence, supports robust statistical analysis, believes in the rigorous
application of the scientific method, and so forth; So, a conspiracy theorist is a sceptic but not a skeptic."

Yes, this is why i did not choose Number one; and a difference with the K and the C by Definition Above;
A Skeptical Person would look to Facts instead of falling Hook, Line, and Sinker to a Conspiracy Theory.
In other Words, they would do the Research first as that applies to what a word even means in detail.
But it seems there are differences in how folks View these Words by Country as Essentially they are 'supposed
to mean' the Same thing; "the etymology of scepticism implies enquiry and reflection, not dismissiveness".
The Linked Article Below goes into much more depth than this.

On the Other Hand, i did Choose 3 and 7 for if one Discounts an Opinion based on any Pre-Conceived
Notion, one Misses out on the Opportunity to Learn something New; and i do mean from any Opinion at all;
for the Negative one Learns may end up being as important a Lesson as the Positive one Learns; whether
it be Truth or Lie; for just an opportunity to expand one's Human Potential to see through a Totally Different
Person's eyes, the Best one can and will; This also Expands Useful Cognitive Empathy Across the Lifespan for Success.

As Far as Folks Just Saying You are Wrong; or You are Writing Word Salad, because they don't have the Cognitive
Tools to Understand it; obviously that is a 'No Brainer' and a Pun too; but not if one does not Understand Puns and the
Different Contexts that apply. Sadly, for instance, some folks Just say they can't get Metaphors; but even more sadly
is they give up and no longer try; i didn't do that; in fact, i didn't do that with anything i didn't know; therefore
Obviously, i know and do more; the simple Math of Using it Versus Losing it; no matter what the new unexplored
Adventure is; but of course some Personalities are not nearly as open to that; i can easily switch hit between
Extreme Introvert and Extrovert; but the key still is use it or lose it; don't fall to labels; expand one's Human Potential
Now in the Struggle to Unpack More of one's Epigenetic Positive Potential; for it's true; both Neuroplasticity and
Epigenetics will Move in a Stifling way of Negative Human Potential too; Karma; the Science of Human Karma;
And sure the rest of existence as that applies to use it or lose it now, too; Open or Closed Environment for Potential.


https://www.theguardian.com/science/the ... ry-science

Most of the examples have nothing to do with "skepticism".

Indeed only option five is a clear cut example of a person employing "skepticism". The rest either have nothing to do with skepticism, or may or may not be examples of it, but we cant tell from the information given.

A skeptic is a person who looks for evidence to back up assertions.

Believing in conspiracy theories has nothing to do with "skepticism". Indeed it can be a symptom of credulity (the opposite of skepticism).

No 2. could be called skepticism

no 3 is just being close minded. Nothing to do with skepticism

no.4. nothing to do with skepticism.

no.5. Is an example, In fact it is the very definition of , "skepticism". Nothing wrong with it per se. But I suppose that a person can over do it. Demanding evidence that "humans have two arms" might be "too much skeptisim".

No.6. I dunno. Same answer as five. It is "skepticism", but if they literally "respond that way to EVERY thing you say" then it would be "too much skepticism". Demanding evidence for the assertion that its a "nice day" would be too much.

7. An example of close mindedness. Nothing to do with skepticism.

8.A true "skeptic" would weigh the evidence, and talk about both sides, and would make their conclusion about your assertion. Either your assertion might be right or wrong, or their conclusion about your assertion might be right or wrong. But if they weigh the evidence then they are a true skeptic.

If you work for Ford, and the person you're talking to works for General Motors. then they have a vested interest in proving that your assertion that "Fords are better cars" is wrong. And they may collect data to prove that your assertion is wrong, and they may have cherry picked (and they may have left copious evidence for the quality of Fords on the cutting room floor). And you may well do the same, but opposite thing, in favor of Ford, and against GM.

Or the person may be just open minded. And they did research. And all that they found was ….evidence that Fords are crap. So their honest unbiased effort results in a lopsided one sided indictment of Ford.

From the information given in the option you cant tell whether or not the person is being "skeptical" at all. Much less too skeptical. Depends on the situation.



9. Nothing to do with skepticism.