Further Thoughts on Skepticism

Vox Day recently identified some characteristics of Skeptics which are Anti-Skeptical, some of which I will paraphrase here:

1. Asymmetrical application of skepticism. Arguing that there is a “need to challenge dogma” is itself a dogma, and is AntiSkeptical.

2. Argue based on what he, himself as a “Skeptic” holds to be true, despite claim suspension of judgment.

3. Reaching a judgment as opposed to suspension of judgment. This is quite common: “your argument is false” is a judgment, not a suspension of judgment. A suspension of judgment would be, “I can’t know if your argument is false or true”, the reason being, “I can’t know anything under my own rules of knowledge”.

4. Does not compare competing rational positions (dogmas) against each other, “…but rather, attempts to change the discussion to a nonsensical one concerning second-order beliefs.” My example of this would be the constant use of FSM and orbiting tea pot constructs as if they were actually competing rational positions rather than actually being obviously spurious creations made specifically in order to deny the responsibility for making a logical case themselves. (If you deny the existence of the FSM then I can deny the existence of non-material reality – or anything and everything, just because you denied the existence of the FSM).

5. Asking repeatedly “why” and “but how do you know that you know” is (in my view) self-defeating due to the internal contradiction of Radical Skepticism, which is what those assertions represent.

6. Subscribing to other things which are unknown, and/or cannot produce any certitude for knowing, such as science. This is an overt demonstration of the asymmetrical application of Skepticism.

7. Limit their “philosophical Skepticism” to certain areas which they designate, and not to other areas; this is in service to a specific dogma and not Skepticism.

Day concludes that asymmetrical Skepticism “...isn’t merely dogmatic, anti-skeptical, and incoherent, it’s also dishonest and intellectually reprehensible.”

The ongoing issue is that Atheists cannot participate intellectually in a conversation involving logic, because they have no actual logical principles of their own – certainly not those of disciplined deduction, and so have no logical argument to present. As a result, they instead engage at the only level available to them, the attempt to destroy logical arguments by using any destructive techniques which they can muster in their assault.

Radical Skepticism, applied asymmetrically, has probably seemed to work to some extent in the past, so they keep trying it despite having the rug of respectable rational argumentation pulled from under their feet, demonstrating the lack of foundational axioms to support themselves.

The rush to attempt to destroy a competing argument while using only tools of irrational destruction is a firm indicator of the possession of an irrational ideology, one which fears exposure and attempts to destroy the opposition with irrationality, devolving into personal attacks of increasing volume and intensity. As far as attacking the argument itself, that is not done except through denial and ridicule and the occasional false charge of fallacy, generally Straw Man.

Skepticism, as a general philosophy, self-defeats at the point where the skeptic asserts the certainty of the skeptical position. If a philosophical Skeptic declares that dogma is bad, or that something must be challenged, he has left Skepticism and is asserting a position. But Skepticism as a philosophy is the position that no position on anything, ever can be taken because nothing can be known for certain.

It doesn’t take long to peel back the Skeptical front and find the position which is being hidden behind the skirts.

A true Skeptic, one who actually believes in Skepticism, will never assert anything other than “I cannot know that for certain”.

But even that is self-defeating, because the Skeptic is certain of that position.

For most avowed “Skeptics”, however, Skepticism is just a tool, a form of attack on knowledge from a position which they think requires no defense. In reality it is anti-rational, being internally contradictory.

Skepticism, when focused on itself, fails again. If Skepticism is “I can’t know that”, regarding the statement, “I can’t know that”, then it is possible that it could be known. (I can’t know that I can’t know…) So the entire philosophy crumbles under its own weight of internal non-coherence.

In fact, going back to the first sentences above, when a Skeptic declares that there is a need for certainty, he is taking a position; if he defines what certainty entails, he is taking a position. He cannot take positions with certainty if nothing can be known.

None of this is to say that being skeptical of obviously incorrect or absurd propositions is not useful. But unless the skepticism is principled enough to accept rationally probable logic when it is demonstrated, then it is not skepticism, it is dogmatic, destructive denialism which will not be moved by any logic or evidence whatsoever. And it is in service to a personal agenda, which must be protected at all costs, including the sacrifice of logic and rationality.