Three Misunderstood Terms: Skepticism, Argument, and Theory

Many misunderstandings come about as a result of a lack, or misunderstanding, of definitions of terms. Without terms that are properly and consistently defined, productive discussion can be difficult or impossible. And without productive discussions, civilization can be difficult or impossible. I'd like to look at three terms today that are often misused: Skepticism, Argument, and Theory. I have chosen these terms because they relate to things I discuss here fairly often and I'd like my meanings to be clear.

1. Skepticism is often confused with cynicism. Perhaps it is best if I allow the words of the Skeptic Society (www.skeptic.com) to explain:

***

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.

***

Skepticism, by definition, is a very good thing. The opposite of being skeptical is being gullible, believing things too easily. In the gullible, or credulous, state, we are susceptible to being misled by a variety of people ("snake oil salesmen," televangelists, used car salesmen, conspiracy theorists, telemarketers, etc.) and organizations (marketing firms, governments, cults, various groups with nefarious intentions, etc.). Such lack of skepticism can lead to great financial, emotional, intellectual, and/or physical harm to us, our loved ones, and society. Skepticism is a sort of smoke alarm for BS: it can save lives, but must be maintained and kept operable.

2. An Argument is not when you and someone else yell at each other. An argument is "a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument), or a "discourse intended to persuade" (Ibid.). According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/argument.htm), an argument is: "a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition. Arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion. The premises are those statements that are taken to provide the support or evidence; the conclusion is that which the premises allegedly support." You can see examples and more discussion of this at the website noted above.

3. A Theory, when used in a scientific sense, does not mean anything at all like "a hunch" or "a guess." I found a pretty good explanation at http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm:

***

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

***

This is why anyone referring to some established scientific theory as "just a theory" is either ignorant of the basis for their claim or purposely dishonest (either way, it is a pretty good indicator that much of what they say has little factual value). For a scientific theory to become accepted by the scientific community, it must undergo "peer review." The peer review process is similar to jumping into a river filled with piranha. Scientists are always looking to either find that next great discovery or shoot down someone else's great discovery -- that's what makes careers and wins awards (and grant money). It is largely this democratic nature of science that makes it trustworthy and productive. It is tough to get sloppy, inaccurate, or incomplete ideas past the scientific community. I am pretty familiar with the process, not only because I have long been a fan of science, but because my wife has been an editor at one of the world's most prestigious biology journals for the last twelve years. I hear lots of "behind the scenes" stuff, and I know how competitive and vicous the field can be. For something to reach the level of a theory accepted by the scientific community is pretty impressive, and carries a very high degree of being true.

In conclusion, I hope that I have provided a little insight into some proper definitions, and perhaps given you a way to work on your own theories, arguments, and skepticism. Learning these definitions and putting them into use will enhance your life and the lives of others by helping to decrease the amount of BS that flows freely around the world. Defeating such BS also promotes liberty by freeing us from the chains of lies and misinformation and allowing us to make better decisions in our daily lives. As the adage goes, "Garbage in, garbage out."