Critical Thinking, Conclusions, and You.

[Fade]

I have found that many that misunderstand the skeptical mindset believe that if one comes to a conclusion, they aren't excercising their critical thinking skills, and that they aren't a "true skeptic."

I am sure many of us could wax poetically on why this is or isn't true, which is why I want to discuss this topic.

How much evidence is enough evidence to draw a conclusion?

 

[arcticpenguin]

Part of the problem may be that the word "conclusion" is so conclusive. Opponents make the improper assumption that our conclusions are final and dogmatic, when in fact they simply cannot produce reliable evidence that would cause us to revise our conclusions.

 

[Doubt]

How much evidence is enough evidence to draw a conclusion?

That would depend on the subject.

Also, it is not just the amount of evidence but the quality as well.

I think we need an example case to demonstrate this, but I cannot not think of one at the moment.

 

[Martin]

I have found that many that misunderstand the skeptical mindset believe that if one comes to a conclusion, they aren't excercising their critical thinking skills, and that they aren't a "true skeptic."

Encapsulated rather neatly by the phrase 'I used to be a sceptic, but...'. No, idiot. If you really ever were a sceptic, you wouldn't say stupid things like that. Sceptics are allowed to come to conclusions based on the evidence - indeed, not doing so betrays a lack of scepticism. It is just as bad to disbelieve something in the face of convincing evidence as it is to believe something given insufficient or contrary evidence.

Anyone who says they used to be a sceptic clearly never was - indeed, they do not even understand what scepticism is.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I have found that many that misunderstand the skeptical mindset believe that if one comes to a conclusion, they aren't excercising their critical thinking skills, and that they aren't a "true skeptic."

I am sure many of us could wax poetically on why this is or isn't true, which is why I want to discuss this topic.

How much evidence is enough evidence to draw a conclusion?

How much evidence we need to reach a conclusion really depends on the question. trival concerns require minimal evidence (i.e. a quick look at the gas guage of ones car is sufficient to draw a conclusion whether or not one has enough fuel to get to ones destination, even though gas gauges can be wrong), larger concerns require more evidence (i.e. you really wouldn't want to fly in an airplane whose design wasn't thouroughly tested and concluded to be safe)

We draw conclusions all the time, we couldn't function if we didn't, so as for drawing a conclusion being inconsistant with critical thinking I say Bulls**t. I think one can think critically and still reach conclusions as long as one has enough facts to reach the conclusion, the facts fit the conclusion and one is ready to change the conclusion if new facts present themselves that show the conclusion to be false.

 

[Upchurch]

Part of the problem may be that the word "conclusion" is so conclusive. Opponents make the improper assumption that our conclusions are final and dogmatic, when in fact they simply cannot produce reliable evidence that would cause us to revise our conclusions.

AP hit it on the head with this statement, Fade.

No matter what "conclusion" a skeptic arrives at, it is always prefaced with the understanding that whatever the conclusion is, it will and should always be open to later re-examination and refutation. (Aside: it's as true for science as it is for skepticism.)

 

[Beleth]

It is just as bad to disbelieve something in the face of convincing evidence as it is to believe something given insufficient or contrary evidence.

I think the word "skeptic" has undergone a similar mass-media undesirable twist as the word "hacker" has.

The original "hackers" were just people that liked to mess around with technological gadgets. Now the word connotes evildoers that break into your bank account and deface web sites.

Likewise, "skeptics" were people that kept an open mind about things, but required evidence to come to a conclusion. Now we're seen as people who irrationally cling to their current, "hard scientific" beliefs, despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Dymanic]

I think that the processes that result in our reaching a conclusion tend to run on automatic -- we usually reach conclusions first and question the assumptions later. Skeptics do this too. The skeptic is simply willing to begin the assumption-questioning phase a little sooner, and to pursue it with a little more vigor. Some skeptics might deny reaching conclusions first, but I'm skeptical about such claims.

 

[Yahzi]

I have found that many that misunderstand the skeptical mindset believe that if one comes to a conclusion, they aren't excercising their critical thinking skills, and that they aren't a "true skeptic."

One definition of the word "skeptic" is equivalent to nilhism: the idea that knowledge itself is impossible. In this archaic sense (the ancient Greeks used this meaning), the above charge is correct.

I am sure everyone is familiar with how ancient some people's thinking is. Talking to a believer is often an excersize in living history: everytime I hear Pascal's Wager, I marvel at how people are still working through the last millienia of philosophical thought. It's as if ordinary people were unaware of algerbra, or calculus, and yet insisted on arguing mathematics.

 

[justsaygnosis]

Part of the problem may be that the word "conclusion" is so conclusive.

I agree.
May I proffer the statement, "The most reasonable postulant in light of all the known facts."?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you state a conclusion that does not agree with the other person's belief, he will call you a pseudo-skeptic. If you hedge on that conclusion in an effort to show that you'd be willing to change your mind in light of further evidence, he will call you a sneaky pseudo-skeptic.

What's the common denominator? The fact that you don't agree with him. And whatever you do, do not use the word postulant.

~~ Paul

 

[justsaygnosis]

And whatever you do, do not use the word postulant.

~~ Paul

Yes that is a sanctimonious word used only in the most proper setting. It does crinkle some shorts to do it though.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Re: Re: Critical Thinking, Conclusions, and You.

One definition of the word "skeptic" is equivalent to nilhism: the idea that knowledge itself is impossible. In this archaic sense (the ancient Greeks used this meaning), the above charge is correct.

I agree. Too many skeptics seem to adopt this approach to knowledge. I am quite confident I need not be agnostic with respect to everything. I can indeed know that 2 + 2 = 4.

That knowledge is not provisional. I need not await some additional evidence that may or may not be forthcoming. I need not declare that based on the facts as I currently believe them to be true, that under these conditions 2 + 2 = 4, as far as I can tell.

No, dammit, it IS 4, under any set of data you may try to gather. Don't be so timid with conclusions. Many are justified and can be asserted with a high degree of confidence.

AS