Skeptic's Fallacy

The problem with being so skeptical that you question everything and believe in nothing, and how to get back to being practical.A doc

     According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary the philosophy of skepticism is defined as: A doctrine that certainty of knowledge cannot be attained.

     The Skeptic's Fallacy:  That since we cannot know anything with certainty we cannot reasonably commit to any belief or perceived truth.

     Many people commit this fallacy and for many reasons, some of which we will go into shortly.  But the first question is: is there any truth to the skeptic's position?

     Skeptics often make the argument that science overturns its truths on a regular basis.  Newton comes along and claims that F=ma.  Then Einstein comes along and claims that the terms of this equation very according to relative motion or relativity.  The assumption is that in the perhaps not too distant future we will get yet another update and learn that some very small constant needs to be added to account for the type of matter of the moving body.  The skeptic argues that since we can never know for sure if science will  make another breakthrough we can never know with certainty that we have attained a final, perfectly valid Truth.

     The problem with this reasoning is that it is an all or nothing approach that does not give credit to what we have learned about the subject.  Notice that even though relativity affects the terms, F=ma still has the overall form of F=ma.  So Newton was right, just not perfectly right.  (Note that Newton's laws of physics were accurate enough for NASA to put a man on the moon). 

      A good practical way around this problem of accuracy is to be very careful about delineating the conditions on which a theory is based.  This is the scientist's approach: such and such a theory is valid provided these criteria are met.   This way we can avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater and retain some truths on which we can build better rocket science, better relationships, better government, etc.

      Another common argument made by skeptics is that  if you look at the edge of any science you will find that it dissolves into statistics--so we sort of know things but nothing with certainty.  Quantum mechanics is often used as an example.  For instance, we know that the mean decay of fissionable materials is a certain probability and that no matter how much we know about an individual atom we cannot know when it will decay.  For large numbers of particles we know but not for individual particles.  Therefore the skeptic reasons, science is a guessing game.

      The problem with this reasoning is that it ignores the fact that we know with certainty that a large number of particles will have exactly a certain probability that they will decay.  So there are certainties in probabilities if you look for them.

      A final argument that skeptics make, and perhaps the most disconcerting, is that on all issues in which values enter you will find that perfectly intelligent people diverge in there views.  Therefore, truth depends on the person and is subjective. Political polarity is often used as an example for this argument.  The liberals are just as smart as the conservatives and vice versa.

      Seeing through this is very difficult because it takes some insight into a problem that is pervasive in philosophical thinking, namely that different and divergent views are often valid in narrow contexts and not in others.  Lets take the conservative/liberal dichotomy.  Conservatism can be argued to be valid for the efficient running of large institutions.  Free market works for a healthy economy.  What conservatism does not work for is local relations among citizens.  Here liberalism works very well--we know who we are giving assistance to and can therefore know how to help them.  But liberalism does not work well economically in institutions because basically it is impossible to institute love.  So again it is not that it is impossible to reach a consensus among liberals and conservatives.  It is just necessary to apply the two approaches in their appropriate spheres.  (I realize many conservatives and liberals would not be swayed  by this line of reasoning but that still does not invalidate it).

     So what is the motivation behind that skeptic's stance?  It is likely they do not wish to be limited by science and ethics.  As long as we don't know anything we can pursue irrational, whimsical desires without owning up to the consequences.  We can do anything we please.

    What is the cure for this malady?  Careful, honest thinking.  Along with the psychological insight that we may have a tendency to avoid limitation and that we need to overcome it in order to lead orderly, responsible lives. QED.