The difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic

[robvalue]

This is something I've been thinking about for a while, and I got prompted by discussion in another thread about who would rely on their memory, and who would rely on "science" (demonstrable evidence) when the two are at odds. This is a perfect contrast between the sceptic and non-sceptic. I choose science, a non-sceptic generally chooses memory.

I'm a self-proclaimed "sceptic", which simply means that I try to only believe things when there is suitable evidence to support the belief. I'm not suggesting I always succeed, I am human after all. I am very fallible. For this reason, I regularly review my own beliefs as much as I can, to see if I've made errors or faulty assumptions.

Some (not all) people who are into some sort of woo (religion, spirituality, crystals, ghosts, whatever) actually sneer at the idea of being a sceptic. They seem proud to declare themselves a non-sceptic, even if they don't explicitly put it that way.

I've come to realise the difference between your average sceptic and your average non-sceptic. It's not a difference in their entire approach to beliefs and claims. Of course, there will be some people who are very gullible or unfortunately not mentally capable of any useful level of scepticism. But on the whole, the non-sceptic functions like the sceptic (except maybe not as rigorously) with regard to most things. If it's a neutral subject, the non-sceptic will likely throw up similar objections to a sceptic when presented with poor evidence. Someone who is incapable of scepticism would struggle immensely with daily life.

The difference comes when we are assessing our own beliefs and memories. This is where the approaches differ wildly. The sceptic attempts to remain as objective as possible, being as critical of their own memories and beliefs as they would of anyone else's. The sceptic tries to discount unsupported conclusions they may intuitively feel, especially when those conclusions are based on emotion.

The non-sceptic seems to generally hold their own memory up as being close to infallible, at least in regard to how it supports their belief. They also put a lot of stock in emotion, "just knowing" things, ad-hoc explanations for events, and are willing to hastily identify scientifically undemonstrated phenomena. (It was a ghost! It was god!)

They also apply an unreasonably high level of scepticism with regard to anything that may challenge their beliefs or memories. They will basically never accept any contradictory evidence, they will continue to demand more and more and won't be satisfied without an impossible 100% certainty. Sceptics are of course guilty of this kind of bias too, it's a natural kind of confirmation bias. But sceptics try to address and balance this as much as possible. No one will ever be totally unbiased, and attempts to reduce biases may fail, but the sceptic is more likely to at least try.

So really, the sceptic tries to apply uniform scepticism, while the "non-sceptic" is happy to pick and choose when to apply scepticism, and how much. If someone else relays an anecdote that supports a non-sceptics belief, they appear to accept it almost without question. The sceptic is also generally far more comfortable saying, "I don't know / I have no beliefs about that." The non-sceptic often gets things backward, asking the sceptic for evidence of disbelief; rather than supporting a claim with evidence.

[Edited for clarity]