|
Negative stereotypes of the
skeptic abound. The god-forsaken atheist. The cynic. The conspiracy
theorist. The closed-minded wowser. The bearded, bespectacled,
big-bellied curmudgeon. Okay… this last one might be accurate but
overall the popular perception of a skeptic is not.
What is a skeptic anyway? Is
the average Australian a skeptic? Let’s start by defining the word,
remembering that skeptic and sceptic
are regional spellings and don’t constitute semantic
differences. The Macquarie Dictionary does us a disservice by defining sceptic as: “one who has a
doubting, pessimistic attitude towards people, plans, ideas, etc.”
Omit ‘pessimistic’ and you have a passable definition of the
adjectival form (compare to be skeptical of with a skeptic)
but it is an inaccurate evaluation of the epithet. Even worse, The
American Heritage Dictionary asserts that a skeptic:
“disagrees with assertions or generally accepted
conclusions”. In contrast, a skeptic investigates anomalous
phenomena and seeks evidence to arrive at an accepted conclusion!
Given the common pejorative
connotations of skeptic, some have endeavoured
to revamp its image. But language has a mind of its own. There is a
movement to merge skeptic and other, diverse terms, including atheists, non-theists, non-believers,
agnostics, free thinkers and humanists under the
umbrella term of brights. Despite the
obvious problem of the discrete meanings of these labels, bright,
with glaring implications of arrogance, will perpetuate the stereotype of
these people as smart arses. We need not
abandon the perfectly expressive skeptic. We can’t
artificially ameliorate the word but we can clarify its meaning.
Some look to the etymology of
a word for its ‘true’ meaning. While the origins of a word
may give an indication of meaning it is never a reliable determiner of
the contemporary semantics of a word. In this case, the etymology is
closer to modern meaning than modern usage. Skeptic is derived
from the Greek skeptikos, akin to
‘an inquirer’ or ‘an investigator’.
Philosophical skepticism, as
opposed to scientific skepticism, advocated suspending judgment on the
truth of any claim. Today, to be a skeptic is to promote critical
thinking, to stimulate inquiry, to seek evidence and to advocate the
scientific method to evaluate the validity of claims and practices…all
while maintaining an open mind.
So, is Australia a nation of
skeptics or land of the credulous? The answer may be bullshit. Linguists
Anna Wierzbicka and Cliff Goddard have commented on the cultural value of
the word bullshit in Australian English. They identify the
perceived social dangers of gullibility and naiveté, and the importance
of being able to “see through” bullshit, likening this
to skepticism. In his famed book, The Lucky Country, Donald Horne
observed “a deeply ingrained skepticism” in Australian
attitudes. Australians certainly display a suspicion and distrust of
bullshit and a feted ability to ‘detect bullshit’. Is this
latent skepticism?
Does the average Aussie
really believe in paranormal phenomena and/or pseudoscience? Do people believe
in Tom Fisher’s ghost or is it publicity for Campbelltown
city and an excuse for a two-week festival every year? Do we believe in
stories of haunted gaols and quarantine
stations or do we celebrate them along with yowies,
bunyips and drop bears, as myths, legends and
folk history? Do Aussies really believe that mediums can contact the
deceased? That psychic healing will cure terminal illness or that dowsing
can locate water? Often the line blurs between belief in a
practice and a desire that it will work.
Perhaps we are all skeptics,
to some extent. Skeptics don’t belong to a club or society. There
is no organisation to subscribe to, only a magazine. Skepticism is a way
of thinking. All that differs is the degree to which the individual
applies this thinking. A group of us from the New South Wales committee once had a
weekly radio show, The Skeptic Tank, on Net Fm. Two Neuro-linguistic
Programmers followed with a slot. Between segments, we would chat and
they would often heartily agree with the sentiments we’d expressed
during our show. Yet they were surprised when we questioned the
legitimacy of their practice! Beliefs vary between people.
While I don’t claim we
are a nation of James Randis, we all have the
capacity for skepticism. Like a commonsense conscience, it’s there
to goad us to question the pyramid scheme before investing and losing the
nest egg. To question the efficacy of the naturopath’s pills and
their possible interaction with prescriptive medicine. To question the
ambiguous and generalised readings of the
astrologer. To weigh the minimal risk of vaccination against the
potentially fatal consequences of non-vaccination. Skepticism is a
protective mechanism, to shield us from harm, if we allow it to. Rather
than dismiss it as negativity, let’s acknowledge the skeptic in us
all and nurture a healthy dose of it.
Stollznow, Karen. 2004. Naked
Skeptic: What’s In A Name? Australasian Science. Vol. 25,
No. 7, p. 46.
|
