Is "True Skeptic" a fallacy?

[BS Investigator]

Some have argued that the term "True Skeptic" is a fallacy.

Do you agree?

Definition:

True Skeptic: One who requires valid scientific evidence for extraordinary claims, without exception.

Some opponents of the term True Skeptic claim that it falls under the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. On the surface, this may seem like a no-brainer. It is, indeed.

This from the real wiki entry for "No True Scotsman Fallacy":

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

When considering this argument in a context of rhetorical logic, this is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

Some elements or actions are exclusively contradictory to the subject, and therefore aren't fallacies. The statement "No true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of "vegetarian:" Eating meat, by definition, disqualifies a (present-tense) categorization among vegetarians, and the further value judgement between a "true vegetarian" and the implied "false vegetarian" cannot likewise be categorized as a fallacy, given the clear disjunction. In logic, the mutually exclusive contradiction is called a logical disjunction.

I would argue that a skeptic who believes the extraordinary claims of religion, IE Resurrection, parting the Red Sea, Afterlife, and so on - with zero valid evidence is not a True Skeptic, in the same way that a teetotaler who slams 20 whiskey shots in a row a few times a week is not True Teetotaler.

Thoughts?

 

[Donks]

What is the True Skeptic's position regarding untestable claims?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ignoring for a moment that we haven't defined extraordinary claim, what happens if I simply don't pay any attention to lots of extraordinary claims? Am I skeptical about them, or am I tacitly accepting them?

~~ Paul

 

[BS Investigator]

What is the True Skeptic's position regarding untestable claims?

That they are untestable and must not be "believed" without valid evidence.

 

[Donks]

That they are untestable and must not be "believed" without valid evidence.

Untestable mean that valid evidence cannot be provided. So you're saying they must be disregarded?

 

[Dogdoctor]

True Skeptic: One who requires valid scientific evidence for extraordinary claims, without exception.

I think there are skeptics who fit this definition. I think there are less skeptical folks who fit this definition. The extraordinary claims ignores ordinary claims.

That they are untestable and must not be "believed" without valid evidence.

I am not sure the wording is right on that statement since I think you can be skeptical and believe that something is probable but not proved.

 

[BS Investigator]

.... I think you can be skeptical and believe that something is probable but not proved.

Sure, you can believe it's probable, but not "true," unless you have some valid scientific evidence, especially for very extraordinary claims. For exampe, scientists believed strongly that other stars in our galaxy had planets orbiting them through much of the 20th Century, but they could not say it was true until more recent advances in science allowed us to detect such planets directly.

I believe that other intelligent life in the galaxy is probable, but I cannot say it is true or real, because no valid evidence backs that up - yet.

And that's the difference between a True Skeptic and a regular skeptic. I want VERY BADLY to learn that other life exists in the universe. I think it would change humanity's entire perspective, and could save us from self-destruction. I want that to be true in the same way others might want "God" to be true (and for similar reasons), but I cannot allow myself to take the plunge and just toss my skeptical reasoning aside, in order to "believe" in something in which I have an emotional stake.... no matter how badly I want to.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I look at things in a sliding scale of proof with no clear borders between true and probable. Just more convincing and less convincing evidence.

 

[BS Investigator]

I look at things in a sliding scale of proof with no clear borders between true and probable. Just more convincing and less convincing evidence.

What about 2 + 2 = 4?

 

[Dogdoctor]

What about 2 + 2 = 4?

Mathematics is different from most of the rest of life in that it is self defining and conceptual rather than real so by definition 2 +2 = 4 If we wish to change the meanings of the symbols we can do so. Then 2+2=6 or whatever within the logic of math. However most things are not clearly defined by the symbols to describe them and exist as real things rather than abstract concepts like mathematics

 

[luchog]

For exampe, scientists believed strongly that other stars in our galaxy had planets orbiting them through much of the 20th Century, but they could not say it was true until more recent advances in science allowed us to detect such planets directly.

That is still a falsifiable/testable claim.

That is dramatically different from the Christian concept of G-D (minus the fundamentalist and other accretions) as transcendent, existing outside nature, and therefore not testable. There is evidence of His existence present in nature, but no absolute proof since that is impossible; and the evidence is open to interpretation.

 

[Darat]

Some have argued that the term "True Skeptic" is a fallacy.

Do you agree?

Definition:



Some opponents of the term True Skeptic claim that it falls under the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. On the surface, this may seem like a no-brainer. It is, indeed.

This from the real wiki entry for "No True Scotsman Fallacy":



I would argue that a skeptic who believes the extraordinary claims of religion, IE Resurrection, parting the Red Sea, Afterlife, and so on - with zero valid evidence is not a True Skeptic, in the same way that a teetotaler who slams 20 whiskey shots in a row a few times a week is not True Teetotaler.

Thoughts?

Totally disagree. Scepticism is about doubt, a "true sceptic" is someone who doubts everything, whether that be "scientific evidence", the evidence of their own eyes or any other kind of evidence, a true sceptic is someone who holds that nothing can be known for certain, that all knowledge is provisional.

 

[RSLancastr]

Re: Re: Is "True Skeptic" a fallacy?

a true sceptic is someone who holds that nothing can be known for certain, that all knowledge is provisional.

So then, a "true skeptic" would even doubt his or her own skepticism!

 

[Soapy Sam]

A true sceptic would at least consider the possibility that this thread was a hoax.

 

[Dredred]

You can come up with all sorts of definitions for "True X", whether X is Skeptic, Anarchist, Milkman or Donut. But when X has already been defined, people can decide for themselves whether someone/something is a True X. If one person decides to define "True X", his definition is completely subjective. To present it as objective would be fallacious.

 

[RSLancastr]

You can come up with all sorts of definitions for "True X", whether X is Skeptic, Anarchist, Milkman or Donut. But when X has already been defined, people can decide for themselves whether someone/something is a True X. If one person decides to define "True X", his definition is completely subjective. To present it as objective would be fallacious.

Well said.

Yes, BSI, "True Skeptic" is a fallacy.

You (assumedly) belong to a group: Skeptics.

There are those who are also in that group that you want to exclude from the group (those who believe in a god, for example), so you come up with a new definition of "skeptic," and call it a "true skeptic."

This is no different from the Scotsman wanting to exclude from that group (Scotsmen) those in the group who do things he does not want to be associated (who put sugar on their porridge, whatever), and comes up with a new definition, "true Scotsman."

I (think I) understand the motivation. BSI. We've all seen or heard people who call themselves skeptics, who we would not ourselves consider skeptics ("I'm a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, but I truly believe in bigfoot and Cydonia!").

But trying to come up with a term which you think differentiates you from them is, in my view, pointless. And coming up with the term "true skeptic" is simply inviting comparisons to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You might do better to come up with "strong and weak skepticism," as a parallel to "strong and weak atheism" (two other terms I don't care for.

 

[LostAngeles]

I have a thought that in all communities, be they "virtual" like ours, or a group of people living on the 500 block of Maple Street, that there are always those that cling to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, that the idea that there's a set of criteria that makes someone a, "true <member of group x>," exists in all groups.

If I hadn't decided to do my conference paper in Cultural Anthro on the lack of train etiquette with relation to a lack of "train culture" in L.A. (or if I could reasonably get a wide enough sample in the limited time frame I have), I'd totally be all over this.

But to answer the OP, while the ideal of a "true skeptic" may exists, I don't believe it to be likely that a "true skeptic" does exist among humanity.

If you have evidence, please provide, plzkthx.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I'm sorry, but no true skeptic would ever put forth the idea that a true skeptic exists, because a true skeptic would understand that the very concept of there being a "true skeptic" is in itself an extraordinary claim and requires evidence.

 

[c4ts]

"Skeptic" refers to someone who holds a skeptical opinion, and it could be about any one thing. Generally, those who hold it on a lot of different issues are considered skeptics, but there is no reason they have to hold it all the time about everything. The only time this would ever be a contradiction is when someone is skeptical about something they already believe is true, since they believe and disbelieve at the same time in the same sense. So, you can have skeptics who say Nessie is a hoax but believe in Atlantis (although this is highly unlikely because both are New Age beliefs and tend to accompany one another). Should the issue of Atlantis arise, they're not skeptical, but Nessie believers will rightfully call them skeptics when talking about their lake monster. Adding "true" in front of the word doesn't clarify anything, and it doesn't make these selective skeptics false through any kind of reasoning, so I suggest you find another name for your idea than "true skeptics."

 

[Ducky]

Seems to me a "true skeptic" as defined would seem be sophistry.

Not for me, thanks.

Or did I misunderstand the "I cannot know anything, so nothing is true" angle to it? (that wasn't sarcasm, I am honestly asking that.)


edited to expound.