Pathological Skepticism

[stateofmind]

Many neuroses and pathologies are simply extreme forms of an otherwise healthy function. I think that we can all agree that there are some levels of skepticism, both excessive and insufficient, that tend to inhibit rather than assist in the attainment of knowledge (assuming that's the goal of skepticism). I would like to discuss just where those levels to formulate an accurate definition and if possible, a kind of profile of the typical person of this peculiar neurosis.

The definition I've come up with is this: A condition in which the level of skepticism in the individual serves to inhibit rather than facilitate the acquisition of knowledge.

Also I'd like some input on names. I've come up with a few that are listed in the poll. Feel free to share your own.

 

[Doreen]

Your suggestions are fine but I would like to have the term be in the negative

Credophobic.

Fear of beliefs or believing.

And I like your sense of humor on this one. I think there is an implicit belief that having fewer beliefs is better. This is an untested (meta)belief and should not be accepted, even implicitly, as in any way scientific.

 

[stateofmind]

Your suggestions are fine but I would like to have the term be in the negative

Credophobic.

Fear of beliefs or believing.

And I like your sense of humor on this one. I think there is an implicit belief that having fewer beliefs is better. This is an untested (meta)belief and should not be accepted, even implicitly, as in any way scientific.

Actually I think you're right. I think it is more accurate to call it a fear of beliefs. Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[superluminal]

I haven't voted yet, but I like the choices. I need to think about it a bit more. But...

The goal of skepticism is not attainment of knowledge. It is more or less a filtering mechanism meant to improve the reliability of the information coming through. Humans are experts bar-none at inventing explanations for things and convincing other silly humans that those things are "true" without a shred of evidence. All you need to do is tell them that most other people believe it and they won't be in the club if they don't believe too :bawl:

So science (from Latin 'scientia' for 'knowledge') was slowly developed as a method to overcome this well known mechanism of involuntary (and many times voluntary) self deception and error.

So, what would be pathological skepticism? It would be the attempt to always try to filter out as much garbage as possible to attain the most reliable knowledge. So how is this then a pathology? I found two likely definitions of pathology:

1 )altered or caused by disease; also : indicative of disease

2 ) being such to a degree that is extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal <a pathological liar> <pathological fear>

I think (1) is not applicable, while (2) would be what? Not accepting anything without rigorous scientific proof, right? So I like the name...

 

[superluminal]

...Skeptinoia. Like paranoia only it's the fear that you are being duped by any claim without incredible scientific rigor.

 

[Stoniphi]

I would consider "pathological skepticism" to be "denial", a word that is already in use, though perhaps not as much fun as making up a new one.

Skepticism is a healthy intellectual coping strategy for dealing with significant levels of false information we are confronted with. Balancing skepticism with optimism is the real trick as well as the way to proceed rationally.

 

[River Ape]

You missed skepticemia!
Septicemia --> can give you a Rash.
Skepticemia --> can make you Cautious.

 

[dixonmassey]

"The art of accurate observation" tends to displease people with a tendency to stick their heads up certain places. We shall start a thread about all permeating promoting (everywhere, can't hide) of positive thinking BS. That's what I call denial and escapism. That's indeed a pathology. What makes it much worse - it's a mass pathology (it's a mass pathology because denial and escapism are really handy crowd control tools in the corporate and government arsenals). Generic Clinical Prozac induced cheerful attitude makes me sick. I'll take a genuinely grumpy, skeptical person (a dying breed because of the work place discrimination) any time.

 

[stateofmind]

"The art of accurate observation" tends to displease people with a tendency to stick their heads up certain places. We shall start a thread about all permeating promoting (everywhere, can't hide) of positive thinking BS. That's what I call denial and escapism. That's indeed a pathology. What makes it much worse - it's a mass pathology (it's a mass pathology because denial and escapism are really handy crowd control tools in the corporate and government arsenals). Generic Clinical Prozac induced cheerful attitude makes me sick. I'll take a genuinely grumpy, skeptical person (a dying breed because of the work place discrimination) any time.

I agree that it could be considered pathological to not be skeptical enough - I even mentioned it in my first post. You don't think there's a level of skepticism where it begins to inhibit rather than help the person?

 

[dixonmassey]

You don't think there's a level of skepticism where it begins to inhibit rather than help the person?

"Inhibit rather than help the person" is rather a very abstract average we cannot calculate or even define. If above average skepticism saves one's butt just once but in a major way, how can anybody answer your question? Rule of thumb - if a person consistently skeptical without good (or even average) reasons or premonitions, he doesn't want to do something. Not wanting to do something is not a sufficient reason to be classified as a pathology of some kind.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

There's a lot to that statement above.

That being said, yes I tire of people trying to 'act smart' by calling everything BS.

A tunnel vision of skepticism is the largest hurdle in science, it holds back new discoveries, or gains in understanding every day. This appears to be actually hard wired into humans to be this way, and thus in many ways science and religion are very much alike. Established theories that become dogma. People are reluctant to give up on or question these dogmatic beliefs. Undue skepticism is given to anything that may disagree with either form of dogma in mankind. Turns out it's probably neurological in nature.

Here is an article that covers some examples of the effects of a type of almost religious 'skepticism' in science:

 

[iceaura]

The term "a healthy scepticism" is common - it would seem to imply the common experience of other kinds.

 

[dixonmassey]

That being said, yes I tire of people trying to 'act smart' by calling everything BS.

Not in this wage world. I think a tunnel vision of Prozaced "optimism" overshadows any danger posed by tunnel skepticism. These days "debates" degenerated to an arse kissing contest played by upwardly mobile crowd on the arses of upper ups. Voicing a skeptic thought is simply dangerous and it's rarely practiced, extremely rarely, one must weigh every "skeptical" word before spouting it, otherwise ... . If the words like "Exciting", "groundbreaking", "promising" ... don't dominate your speech - just forget it. The more "It's an excited opportunity" you can squeeze in your talk, the smarter you act, the further you'd go.

In the present environment, skeptics are a dying breed and need to be protected by law.

 

[stateofmind]

Not in this wage world. I think a tunnel vision of Prozaced "optimism" overshadows any danger posed by tunnel skepticism. These days "debates" degenerated to an arse kissing contest played by upwardly mobile crowd on the arses of upper ups. Voicing a skeptic thought is simply dangerous and it's rarely practiced, extremely rarely, one must weigh every "skeptical" word before spouting it, otherwise ... . If the words like "Exciting", "groundbreaking", "promising" ... don't dominate your speech - just forget it. The more "It's an excited opportunity" you can squeeze in your talk, the smarter you act, the further you'd go.

In the present environment, skeptics are a dying breed and need to be protected by law.

It's been my experience that skeptics are the typical prozac endorsees - not the optimistic "what if?"-ers.

 

[superluminal]

It's been my experience that skeptics are the typical prozac endorsees - not the optimistic "what if?"-ers.

Typical stereotyping. I like my prozac and it likes me. I'm a skeptic and a dreamer. At least now I'm not a panic-attack ridden nutjob.

 

[stateofmind]

Typical stereotyping.

Hey, aren't you stereotyping the way people stereotype there??

 

[Doreen]

"Inhibit rather than help the person" is rather a very abstract average we cannot calculate or even define. If above average skepticism saves one's butt just once but in a major way, how can anybody answer your question? Rule of thumb - if a person consistently skeptical without good (or even average) reasons or premonitions, he doesn't want to do something. Not wanting to do something is not a sufficient reason to be classified as a pathology of some kind.

Not wanting to eat. Not trusting one's ability to move around. Being skeptical of vision. Being skeptical that there are other minds - iow solipsism. Being skeptical that real communication can take place so the person does not communicate. And so on. And believing can save your life. In fact even believing in things that don't exist or might not exist can save your life. Placebos are a rather non-controversial example of this, but there are many others. Believing that running through that mine field will save your live has probably saved some soldiers on occasion.

 

[lightgigantic]

"The art of accurate observation" tends to displease people with a tendency to stick their heads up certain places. We shall start a thread about all permeating promoting (everywhere, can't hide) of positive thinking BS. That's what I call denial and escapism. That's indeed a pathology. What makes it much worse - it's a mass pathology (it's a mass pathology because denial and escapism are really handy crowd control tools in the corporate and government arsenals). Generic Clinical Prozac induced cheerful attitude makes me sick. I'll take a genuinely grumpy, skeptical person (a dying breed because of the work place discrimination) any time.

 

[dixonmassey]

Not wanting to eat. Not trusting one's ability to move around. Being skeptical of vision. Being skeptical that there are other minds - iow solipsism. Being skeptical that real communication can take place so the person does not communicate. And so on. And believing can save your life. In fact even believing in things that don't exist or might not exist can save your life. Placebos are a rather non-controversial example of this, but there are many others. Believing that running through that mine field will save your live has probably saved some soldiers on occasion.

Sorry, what are you talking about? What does it have to do with skepticism, "healthy" or otherwise?

 

[Doreen]

Sorry, what are you talking about? What does it have to do with skepticism, "healthy" or otherwise?

Each 'thing' in my list is a potential area of skepticism. I suppose my first example could have been clearer, but I think most of the others are.

Being skeptical about what the body desires to eat being good for the body to a degree that one does not eat.

Being skeptical that other minds exist - solipsism.

Being skeptical about ALL sensory information - so in other words instead of reacting to that baseball heading toward your head you spend time mulling over whether external reality is real, or mulling over if one can trust memories of similar events, or if the Ding an Sich are accurately represented by vision or any of a set of other forms of skepticism that you engage in rather than simply trusting the instinct to duck.

Being skeptical that communication - since so much of it is based on metaphors, for example, and abstract categories - can really be effective in all instances.

To me it is pretty obvious that skepticism can be take to unhealthy levels. since you mentioned skepticism saving someone's life just once - which seemed like an argument in favor of skepticism - I pointed out how unquestioning belief can save lives on occasion, thus, I was implying, cancelling out your argument for skepticism.