Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:34 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic
#1
The difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic
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]
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#2
RE: The difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic
I think we all tend to apply more skepticism when things challenge our previously held notions. Is it just non-skeptics that apply the unreasonable amount of skepticism in the face of contradictory evidence?

The Backfire Effect is a repeatedly tested phenomenon. Fortunately, it's effect is directly proportional to lower intelligence.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply
#3
RE: The difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic
You are correct, I did note that Smile

Hopefully the sceptic attempts to acknowledge this and to work on it. I'm not saying they are always successful.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#4
RE: The difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic
No one is or can be. I think admitting one's biases is the first step to reducing the effect.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply
#5
RE: The difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic
I agree again. I mean they're not always successful in making any improvement at all; but at least they try.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#6
RE: The difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic
I guess the biases could be very roughly compared as being "I don't want to change my mind" versus "I will not change my mind".

I will alter the OP as I see how it could be misleading regarding what Steel has mentioned.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#7
RE: The difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic
Isn't there a minimum critical mass of ignorance whereby if a person falls below it, the person can never learn anything as they already know everything!
They're basically too stupid to know they're stupid. How do you deal with those theists people?
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Reply
#8
RE: The difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic
Yes, it's a big problem. It's "John Cheese" syndrome. I really don't know how you deal with them.

https://youtu.be/wvVPdyYeaQU
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#9
RE: The difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic
I don't like the definition of belief given in your post. For me belief only exists where there is insufficient evidence to decide on an issue or where the available evidence goes against the position held. For me, when there is sufficient evidence the correct term isn't belief it is acceptance. For example I accept all the physics that allows me to type this post and stick it on the internet usin a mobile phone. I don't understand it all, but I know the evidence is such that the science is grounded in reality.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli

Home
Reply
#10
RE: The difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic
Okay, fair enough. Perhaps "conclusions" would be a better word?

It's kind of circular, in that to have a (reasonably strong) belief you must have what you consider to be enough evidence for that belief, in some form. You may not actually be able to identify the evidence, however.

I always try and consider if I have enough evidence to convince someone else. If I don't, then I'm suspicious of my own conclusion.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Does the fact that many non-human animals have pituitary disprove Cartesian Dualism? FlatAssembler 36 1988 June 23, 2023 at 9:36 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Relationship between programming languages and natural languages FlatAssembler 13 1112 June 12, 2023 at 9:39 pm
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  The difference between computing and science. highdimensionman 0 349 February 25, 2022 at 11:54 am
Last Post: highdimensionman
  Metaethics Part 1: Cognitivism/Non-cognitivism Disagreeable 24 1461 February 11, 2022 at 6:46 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order Acrobat 84 6907 August 30, 2019 at 3:02 pm
Last Post: LastPoet
  The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential Edwardo Piet 82 11545 April 29, 2018 at 1:57 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Hybrid theory between freewill and determinism Won2blv 18 4198 July 26, 2017 at 10:57 am
Last Post: Rev. Rye
  Non-existing objects KerimF 81 21411 June 28, 2017 at 2:34 am
Last Post: KerimF
  How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions? Azu 19 6829 June 13, 2017 at 5:14 pm
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  What philosophical evidence is there against believing in non-physical entities? joseph_ 150 12080 September 3, 2016 at 11:26 am
Last Post: downbeatplumb



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)