You Are Not a Skeptic (Probably)

And you're not addicted to pizza

The title of this post is a test. It's a very difficult test to pass. Your reaction to the title will reveal whether you are a true skeptic or you have more work to do before you can truly call yourself one. Unless you hate elephants and pizza, read on.

When most people describe themselves as a skeptic, it's about as accurate as saying "I'm addicted to pizza." Pizza certainly does not have the power over you that heroin has over a heroin addict. Our colloquial definition of addiction is imprecise. The same is true of the word skeptic.

Most people use the term skeptic to describe someone who doesn't believe anything until it's proven to them. Or, they use it to describe someone doubtful. Not believing something is as easy as falling off a log for this kind of "skeptic." In other words, they use skeptic to describe a personality trait. It is an evaluative term, and depending on who uses it, it may be neutral, good, or bad. This is not the true definition of a skeptic.

Skepticism, if we are being precise, does not describe a personality trait. In fact, other evaluative terms could be used to describe the same trait:

• contrary

• cynic

• negative

• argumentative

• pessimist

The extent to which any of these descriptions fit depends on who is doing the describing. Some might even refer to this type of skeptic as a "doubting Thomas."

Unless you've thought quite deeply about your relationship to skepticism and applied yourself to it, then you are not a skeptic in the true sense of the term. Skepticism is not a personality trait; it is a method. It is a way of thinking and evaluating not only information, but also what you know and don't know. A true skeptic does not seek to tear down ideas but to think constructively about them.

However, the greatest expression of skepticism is when it is applied to ourselves. Therefore, unless you routinely evaluate your thought processes, you cannot truly call yourself a skeptic. Here is a key question the skeptic in training (and we'll always be in training) can ask to determine whether their thinking requires a reset.

Why Do I Believe This?

Lessons on critical thinking often focus on questions like "Why should I believe a certain thing?" The more important question for a skeptic is "Why do I believe a certain thing?"

In Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Reasoning Well, the authors state, "It is difficult to form beliefs without evidence." I don't know what world these particular thinkers are living in, but forming beliefs without evidence is the rule rather than the exception. They give an example:

Could you make yourself believe that there is a large, pink elephant in your room right now?

Instead of focusing on what we already believe, the authors focus on belief formation. Even a casual review of how you came to certain beliefs will reveal a startling thing: We often have no idea how we came to think a certain thing to be true. Even if a certain piece of evidence helped form our belief, we may keep believing the thing long after we've forgotten the evidence that led us to the belief. It is quite likely that the evidence has changed, which should cause us to re-examine and even change our belief.

If evidence is a pink elephant, well, you need to look for the elephant, not just say "that's impossible."

Just as it is fairly easy for we mere mortals to form beliefs in the absence of evidence, we can form beliefs contrary to the evidence in front of our faces! The true skeptic makes themselves aware of whether or not they have evidence to support their belief.

I'll borrow a method from Stephen Law to illustrate this "pink elephant scenario" and its relationship to evidence. Let's imagine three philosophers, Mr. Gosling, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Kant. They have convened in the library of Mr. Reynolds for their weekly discussion.

Mr. Gosling: "Reynolds, my man, I want you to consider the proposition that there is a pink elephant in your living room.

Mr. Reynolds: "That's preposterous! Of course there is not!"

Mr. Gosling: "How do you know? Maybe you should check."

Mr. Reynolds: "How do I know? Why, elephants are not common around these parts. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a pink elephant. Also, even if there were a pink elephant available, it would not fit through my door! You play me for a fool. I'm not going to look to see if there is a pink elephant in my living room!

Mr. Gosling: "Hmmm...I think you may have something there. Perhaps you don't need to check. Well, what about a squirrel or a raccoon? Perhaps there is one of them in your living room."

Mr. Reynolds: "I doubt it very much!"

Mr. Gosling: "Ah, you were certain there was no pink elephant, but in regards to a squirrel or raccoon, less so. Why the difference?

Mr. Reynolds: "Squirrels and raccoons are common and mischievous animals. I suppose it is possible that one or the other could make its way into my house and end up in the living room. It's highly unlikely, though!"

Mr. Gosling: "Still, perhaps you should check."

Mr. Reynolds: "I will do no such thing…what do you think of all this nonsense, Kant?"

Mr. Kant: "Leave me out of this. I almost have a whole side done on this Rubik's cube."

Mr. Gosling: "You refused to check for a pink elephant. And, although you hold out the possibility that there could be a squirrel or a raccoon in your living room, you also refuse to check. Curious."

Mr. Reynolds: "Nothing curious about it. There has never been an animal in my house, other than the occasional mouse. It is not at all reasonable to suppose that a squirrel or a raccoon is sitting in my living room. I suppose you'll tell me one is sitting in my armchair reading a book."

Mr. Gosling: "Surely, just because something has never happened doesn't mean it never will. In fact, there is no difference between how you treat the notion of a pink elephant and how you treat the notion of a squirrel or a raccoon."

Mr. Reynolds: "There is a world of difference. Although one is more possible than the other, neither is plausible enough to cause me to go look. This is ridiculous."

Mr. Gosling: So, you prove my point. Regardless of how plausible or implausible the scenario, you seek no direct evidence. Indeed, in terms of direct evidence, you treat both scenarios the same."

Mr. Reynolds: "You are trying to confuse me. I...ah…oh you bastard."

Mr. Gosling: Perhaps you should go make sure there is no pink elephant."

Mr. Reynolds: "If it will shut you up, I'll go look!"

[Reynolds leaves the room for a few moments and then returns.]

Mr. Reynolds: "I am thrilled to report that there is indeed not a pink elephant in my living room. Are you happy now?"

Mr. Gosling: "Quite happy. I just acquired $100.

Mr. Reynolds: "How so?"

Mr. Gosling: "I bet Kant here that I could convince you to go see if there was a pink elephant residing in your living room."

Mr. Reynolds: "You're an asshole."

While the idea that a pink elephant is standing in your living room is undeniably ridiculous, most people, in regard to evidence, treat the implausible in the same way as the possible or merely plausible. Squirrel, raccoon, or pink elephant; it makes no difference. As long as the explanation or story we hear is plausible-sounding or compelling enough, we accept a statement as being true, and we fail to demand evidence at all.

There are different types of evidence, and even the premises that Mr. Reynolds presented in his argument with Mr. Gosling can be seen as a type of evidence.

But this type of evidence can only bring our certainty up to a certain level. The evidence of your own eyes is more certain. Apply this not to pink elephants (let's not be silly) but to, let's say, red meat consumption. You may know of many reasons or mechanisms that explain why excessive consumption of red meat is bad for your health and raises your risk of ischemic heart disease (ISD), but a true skeptic will demand more direct evidence of the effect of red meat on heart disease risk and, even more so, mortality.

This evidence may take the form of epidemiological cohort studies or even randomized control trials, but you'll want direct evidence of the effect of red meat on specific health risks, just as Mr. Gosling suggested that Mr. Reynolds might want more direct evidence to confirm the absence of a pink elephant in his sitting room.

I Just Know That's Wrong!

I grapple with this conviction often. It's a constant source of frustration. In fact, it makes me feel like a fool. Those who know me well in the fitness, strength training, and muscle building world have in the past referred to me as a "walking encyclopedia." Yet, I'm painfully aware of the gaps in my knowledge and understanding. The more I learn, the more I discover I do not know. I'm sure this is not a new concept to you. Even worse, though: The more I learn, the more I forget. At least temporarily.

All too often, I find myself reading a piece of information and saying to myself, “That doesn't sound right. I just know that's wrong.” I have to immediately check myself. On many occasions, then, I start researching and learn that the information is indeed correct, and I was mistaken. Yet, I've been deeply immersed in this domain for years. Even decades. You'll often hear that being a skeptic means questioning everything. I think that's absurd. If you question everything, you'll have no time for, well, anything. But, if you want to be a good skeptic, question yourself constantly! Question what you think you know. Question your convictions. Skepticism is as much an inward-looking practice as an outward one. Even more so, at times.

Did You Pass the Test?

I told you in the title that you are not a skeptic. Did you react defensively or with denial, saying, "Of course I'm a skeptic. Up yours!" If you reacted this way, you failed the test. Or, did you react with curiosity and think, "What's he on about? Let me find out." You passed with flying colors. You're also a very rare bird, and you had no need to read this post and could teach me a thing or two.

There is a third category, more like me. Did you react with doubt at first and then stop yourself, and realize you needed to read on before you jumped to conclusions? Yeah, that's most skeptics. Do you understand how this test is effective? It evaluated your willingness to question not the information you just encountered in this post, but your reaction to a slightly provocative and somewhat manipulative title. Skeptics are as curious about their own thought process as they are about the thinking of others!