Skepticism Affirmed

I just fetched the May/June edition of the Skeptical Inquirer - The Magazine for Science and Reason from my mailbox and this little gem caught my eye immediately.  I had to share.

Affirmations of the New Skepticism

by Paul Kurtz

The methods of critical inquiry used so effectively in science need to be extended to all areas of human interest. Beliefs should be treated as hypotheses and tested by evidence, logical coherence, and experimental consequences. All claims to knowledge should be open to revision in the light of inquiry.

Skeptical inquiry is essential for the development of human knowledge. It represents a historic tradition in science, philosophy, and learning. We may distinguish skeptical inquiry, with emphasis on inquiry, from classical skepticism, which was apt to be negative, even nihilistic. This form of skepticism is a new skepticism, for it is positive and constructive; its principles are essential for the development of knowledge about nature and human behavior. With these considerations in mind, a set of principles serves as guidelines for skeptical inquirers:

WE BELIEVE in the possibility of discovering reliable human knowledge. We affirm the positive powers of human intelligence. We believe that the methods of scientific inquiry can expand the frontiers of knowledge and that these can be used for the betterment of humankind.

WE SUBMIT that skepticism is an essential part of scientific inquiry and that it should be extended to all areas of human endeavor–science, everyday life, law, religion and the paranormal, economics, politics, ethics and society–and that the standards of rationality apply to each area of human interest.

WE BELIEVE that critical thinking is inherent in all worthwhile inquiry about the world and that it can be enlisted to solve problems, neutralize animosities, compromise hatred, and negotiate differences.

WE BELIEVE in clarity rather than obfuscation, lucidity in the place of confusion, and linguistic definitions to overcome vagueness or ambiguity.

WE DO NOT reject any claim to knowledge prior to inquiry. We insist, however, that claims be framed in testable form and that the burden of proof rests primarily with the party asserting the claim.

WE ASK for facts, not suppositions; experimental evidence, not anecdotal hearsay or conjecture; logical inference and deduction, not faith or intuition.

WE DO NOT believe in any dogmas or creeds, whether set in stone or proclaimed as official doctrine.

WE REJECT mythologies of salvation whether based on ancient fears or current messianic illusions, unsubstantiated by corroborative empirical grounds. We believe in inquiry rather than authority, reason in the place of tradition.

WE MAINTAIN that reason and science can be used to develop new technologies, alleviate suffering and reduce pain, and ameliorate and enhance human happiness.

WE SUBMIT that rational inquiry can help us to develop and test ethical principles, moral values, and social policies and thus can contribute to human well-being.

WE ARE NOT negative skeptics, naysayers, debunkers, cynics or nihilists. We simply wish to oppose hypocrisy, cant, deception, and illusion. We emphasize instead the tests of evidence and rationality.

In short, we believe that critical inquiry is the best way to frame our means and fulfill our ends.

Paul Kurtz is professor emeritus of philosophy a the State University of New York at Buffalo and founder and chairman of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Among his many books is Affirmations: Joyful and Creative Exuberance (Prometheus Books).

Advertisement

6 Responses

  1. Great guidelines, someone should send them to the Kossacks and the Huff-post crowd. Then again, that would require them to read it and they are very skeptical of anything that involves common sense.

  2. Snerk!

  3. Interesting!

  4. I like it, but the last resolution is hysterically ironic. Ending their positive screed with a negative. Too funny. But the rest of it is really good! And I agree. I only wish this had been published 500 years ago…

  5. I think they had to do that because so many people confuse skepticism with naysayers, who will never agree to anything, so it had to be made clear what skeptics are NOT as well as what skeptics ARE.

  6. A bit too rigorous for me, but worth the read. I liked the use of inclusive language. One of the first things I thought of is “gut feelings.” What would a skeptic say? When I Googled “gut feelings,” I found a review of a study: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14615-why-you-should-go-with-your-gut-feeling.html

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 650 other followers