Leave us not forget Linus Pauling and Vitamin C.
Paul Okami
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allen Esterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: [tips] The myth of consistent skepticism
There's an interesting article in the current (May/June) issue of
Skeptical Inquirer with the title: "The Myth of Consistent Skepticism: The
Cautionary Case of Albert Einstein."
The authors, Todd C. Riniolo and Lee Nisbet, conclude:
No one is once and for all a skeptic. Skeptism is an ongoing process, not
an end to be achieved. It is continually possible to not only backslide
but to apply our skepticism inconsistently. We are all selective skeptics.
Ironically, calling ourselves skeptics may make us less skeptical in
objectively evaluating claims because it may create a false sense of our
willingness to subject all of our beliefs to the principles of inquiry.
Self knowledge concerning our limitations is useful in two ways: it
encourages intellectual humility and honesty and it keeps the daunting
task of not falling prey to our particular certainties forthrightly in
view.
The case of Einstein is cautionary in another respect. Too often, we find
skeptics paying rapt attention to the views of scientific celebrities
regarding topics to which those celebrities' occupational expertise and
accomplishments are totally irrelevant. From a logical point of view, what
a renowned physicist, astronomer, or evolutionary biologist has to say
about psychology, politics, economics, religion, etc., has no special
status whatsoever (just like the Hollywood celebrity who speaks out on
these issues). Scientists' claims regarding these issues must stand on
their logical and substantive merits alone. Too often, the irrelevancy of
scientific celebrity is lost on those who (like all of us) love to be told
what they want to hear, especially by people famous for their intellectual
accomplishments. Yet, the love of misplaced authority is but another step
in the direction of obliviousness to our own selective skepticism.
Simply calling ourselves skeptics is no guarantee that we will objectively
apply the methods of skepticism. Self-awareness that we have limitations
in expertise combined with built-in biases that hinder our consistent
application of skepticism may help to minimize our own selective
skepticism. However, if we ignore our own selective scepticism and
inconsistently apply the method of scepticism, we run the risk, like
Einstein, of deluding ourselves in certain areas like the "true believer"
that every skeptic despises.
Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
http://www.esterson.org/
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
__________ NOD32 2334 (20070615) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
