Is skepticism just a defence mechanism?

[RMQualtrough]

As a way of life, like James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty etc.

Is it really the case that they actually have very naive and malleable minds, so use extreme skepticism and logic in order to compensate for this fault and prevent themselves from being suckered in by everything?

I know Dawkins has a relative with schizophrenia for example, so might be especially afraid of becoming delusional like that relative.

Is "extreme" rationality actually irrational?

 

[Meat Target]

It's just a facade for being know-it-all pricks who believe their shit doesn't stink. Smug assholes like them and Neil deGrasse Tyson stop being "skeptics" and declare themselves infallible truth-tellers whenever someone directs the same skepticism towards themselves.

 

[RMQualtrough]

It's just a facade for being know-it-all pricks who believe their shit doesn't stink. Smug assholes like them and Neil deGrasse Tyson stop being "skeptics" and declare themselves infallible truth-tellers whenever someone directs the same skepticism towards themselves.

Neil is a negro elevated to prominence for inclusive-agenda driven reasons, he can't fairly be held to the same standards.

 

[Meat Target]

Neil is a negro elevated to prominence for inclusive-agenda driven reasons, he can't fairly be held to the same standards.

If Redditors and TJ Kirk can rub the skin off his big black dick, then he can be subjected to scrutiny.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

There's a humble skepticism and there's an arrogant skepticism. The latter is often a faux-skepticism, and you see it among academics, journalists, the elite in general, etc. where they really want to be skeptical to everything they don't like except their totalizing theory that they always find to be the case. I think the former is often more honest about their theories being the result of skepticism leading to the most probable "truth" we can know at the current moment, whereas the latter often leads to a theory based around projection and nihilist dogma. There's a difference, I think, between placing a burden on the claim and rejecting all claims inherently because the perfect explanation is impossible, the latter often turns to ad hoc reasoning which I don't think is very rational at all.

Some of Randi and Dawkins type stuff is deliberately arrogant however because many of the people they wish to engage will refuse to do so unless provoked. I think part of their issues is that they often don't recognize their blind spots because the "skeptical community" is full of a lot of groupthink and dogma. Dawkins recent coming out against troonery offers some faith to the potential of his skepticism I think. I don't really think of any of these people you've mentioned as extreme skeptics though, they don't reject the idea of truth or reality, there's lots of very famous and well published academics who do.

Also, I think there's a rule that every professional skeptic has to write at least one very stupid and very unskeptical book about some topic they think they've mastered with a superficial gloss however. Must be guild requirements.

 

[BirdUp]

on another note i hate the whole "skeptics vs believers" narrative the media pushes where either everything supposedly paranormal is true or every paranormal experience is a fraud without considering each side's evidence

going somewhere reportedly haunted while believing it's haunted or superstition will affect an investigator's results

 

[Named User]

Neil is a negro elevated to prominence for inclusive-agenda driven reasons, he can't fairly be held to the same standards.

They’re all elevated “trust the Science” retards.

 

[Ashkenazi Porn Actress]

The term you're looking for is Pseudo-Skepticism. Marcello Truzzi, who was a founding member and initially co-chaired CSICOP, has written extensively on the problem plaguing organized "skepticism" since his exit from the org in the late 70s.
In practice "skeptics" have a worldview grounded in some sort of primitive materialism and their efforts are always concentrated on heterodox viewpoints and thing classed as fringe or para science. And especially since the Bush years they've been, despite the existence of a bunch of token libertarians and conservatives, a integral part of the leftoid battle line in the culture wars.

 

[Idiotron]

It is a defense mechanism but it's a very useful one.
If you never doubt anything and just accept it because authority figures or "the science" says it's true, you're an easily manipulated dummy.
You should always be skeptical of the unknown and always ask questions, even if your peers will mock you for it.

Even seemingly obvious concepts should be questioned.
Take flat Earthers for example.
People will laugh at them but honestly, if you ask them to prove that the Earth is not flat, how many of them would do anything more than just a smug laugh?
Sure, if you actually look into the science, it checks out but until you do, you're just believing what others tell you without questioning.

I think it's better to question even the most obvious things than to believe blindly.

 

[Wally Paulnuts]

Are guns just a defense mechanism?

 

[The Magnificence]

No, but people questioning and attempting to undermine skeptics to feel better about their own rank idiocy is absolutely a thing.

 

[Stan]

Depends. Good faith skepticism is helpful because it helps you pare down impractical ideas, like driving to Russia or joining ISIS or mining Bitcoin on your mobile phone.

Bad faith skepticism is just another way dumbass men try to bogart a discussion by confidently telling you things they know nothing about, and preventing you from correcting them because of “skepticism”.

People will laugh at them but honestly, if you ask them to prove that the Earth is not flat, how many of them would do anything more than just a smug laugh?

this proof was solved in Antiquity. It involved measuring the distances from three ancient cities at different latitudes to one another and noting that the distances and sundown times didn’t add up unless all three were arranged on a convex surface. But the easiest way to prove the Earth is round is to drag your skeptic to the ocean, and watch ships appear and disappear over the horizon. They don’t just fall out of sight all at once but gradually. Then drown your skeptic in the ocean. He wasn’t coming up with good ideas anyway; he’s useless without June.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Even seemingly obvious concepts should be questioned.
Take flat Earthers for example.
People will laugh at them but honestly, if you ask them to prove that the Earth is not flat, how many of them would do anything more than just a smug laugh?
Sure, if you actually look into the science, it checks out but until you do, you're just believing what others tell you without questioning.

You could prove the earth is not flat simply by witnessing the curvature on a boat or a plane. If anything, I find flat earthers and the original anti vaxxers to be controlled opposition that gave legitimacy to TRUST THE SCIENCE by having retarded easy to disprove beliefs.

 

[Hyperbola]

It would probably be a good thing if people could internalize just how utterly full of shit mankind is. People will push gigantic, intricate, sometimes logically internally consistent narratives, with supreme confidence and arrogance, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with truth or falsehood, likelihood, or true explanatory power. Most of the time, it's tied into instincts around politics and tribal cohesion.

(That goes for the muh-science types too. The shitshow surrounding COVID is a prime example.)

Look at the Russia/Ukraine threads. At most one of those worldviews is anything close to accurate.

I tend to distrust organized anything. The organization often exists for purposes that have nothing to do with the stated purposes. Skepticism, to me, doesn't mean that there is no truth (far from it), or that mankind doesn't know things that are true (also far from it), but that you have to strain the true things out of the inevitable bullshit.

Is "extreme" rationality actually irrational?

I can sort of see this sometimes. There is a group on the internet that calls themselves "the Rationalists", and as far as I can tell, they're possibly a cult. Certainly a California flavor of nutty. The sales pitch is that they're training themselves to think more clearly and suppress cognitive biases, but all the in/group out/group psychological games are in play, and they also seem to have drunk the Singularitan koolaid.

Maybe some of it is an attempt at self-correction. It often goes horribly wrong though - Scientology snares people with a similar pitch. "Your mind is broken and untrustworthy. Trust us! WE can fix you."

(Mankinds brains *are* broken and untrustworthy in certain ways. But there is no one that is going to help you fix it but yourself. Outside offers of "help" are the thing that the defense mechanism of well-calibrated skepticism helps you defend yourself against.

It's a defense against becoming infected with ideological mind-viruses, which we are prone to.

Just because it's a 'defense mechanism', in psychology-speak, doesn't mean there's nothing real to defend against. Your immune system is also a 'defense-mechanism'.)