114. Shades of Skepticism | THUNK

Skepticism is an essential tool for rational thought, but knowing when & how to use it is hard...I think???
(NOTE: the form of skepticism described here is sometimes known as "radical skepticism.")
Links for the Curious
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Skepticism - plato.stanford...
Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing, Kahan et al, 2017 - onlinelibrary.w...
Skepticism on RationalWiki (a resourse of the “skeptic” community, essentially advocates of scientific primacy) - rationalwiki.or...
THUNK 18 - Skepticism & Empiricism (where I cover an alternate version of skepticism called Pyrrhonian skepticism) - • 18. Skepticism & Empir...
THUNK 86 - Cognitive Biases & the Socratic Method - • 86. Cognitive Biases &...
THUNK 58 - The Problem of Induction - • 58. The Problem of Ind...

[@Naxela625]

This subject is very interesting to me personally, as I've had a lot of political reconsiderations in the last year that tempered strongly held prior beliefs, some of which I've tried to share with liberal friends who I originally greatly identified with, but couldn't seem to get very far. I'm always especially curious about the source of many people's thought processes (studying to be a neurogeneticist in fact), but I find myself most concerned sometimes that most people tend not to want to have discussions about particular ideas, beliefs or data points just for the sake of intellectual exploration (something not particularly helped by my own personal tendency to be a reactionary devil's advocate). Moreso though with the climate of political discourse seeming more hostile than ever, I'm unable to really comprehend the endless bouts of yelling back and forth but never hearing each other. When I ask people "do you think 'x' has a point 'y' based on this data?' the tendency is often to become hostile and double-down. I'm not a fan of the team-based skepticism in the slightest, but there isn't really a way to just make people more curious that I can see to change that. Are there other ways of speaking to people across the boundaries of echo chambers? How does one actually teach skepticism in a climate of mistrust for non-conformists?

[@THUNKShow]

You might appreciate the Argumentative Theory of Human Reason (see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZXYqqyfm5x1jLs), which explains a lot of the phenomena you're seeing (in-group bias, echo chambers, motivated reasoning, polarization, etc.). Some evolutionary psychologists believe that humans didn't evolve reason to make better decisions individually, but to push a group to consensus around a certain course of action. I think that framing plays a big role; information supplied in a political context will be interpreted politically, but information supplied in a context of "Isn't this cool?!?" might get past otherwise impregnable mental defenses. You might notice a certain theme for THUNK, viewed in that light...

[@DemonsofRazgriz]

"How does one actually teach skepticism in a climate of mistrust for non-conformists?" "Are there other ways of speaking to people across the boundaries of echo chambers?" Those who are hostile and double down in the face of reason are usually lost causes in my experience. You could sit there and tell them that fire is hot and they wont believe you until they touch it. As long as whatever they are defending does not directly and immediately affect their life, they tend to disregard what has been said to them. With that said, I have had limited success when I approach with a friendly attitude, at least when I can, and rather attack their idea as a whole, just nitpick the edges of what they are arguing. This sometimes leads to a crumbing of the foundation, for lack of a better phrase, that allows some to open their eyes and kind of question things around them a little more often. Maybe I am wrong and this is just confirmation bias but this is what I have done and seems to kind of work.

[@maxw.1334]

depends what you're skeptical of. If your're skeptical of the evidence that human beings are significantly contributing to climate change, you're probably not going to be taken seriously by most everyone. As well you shouldn't be. As for more political concerns i.e. economic or social policies, make sure your skepticism comes from a non-biased understanding of history and not contemporary media outlets.

[@beklenen86]

I can relate to your question as I also come across with the same issue when debating on a political subject. One suggestion would be: remind yourself and the other person this quote: "The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn" - Alvin Toffle

[@Seraphim91]

I'm highly sceptical of there being any such thing as a non-biased understanding of history.

[@UwU_for_Christ]

Great video, I did a wild module on knowledge and metaphysics, and solipsism/scepticism is definitely one of the more interesting parts of the field. My problem with Descartes was always that it seemed to me that if one followed his logic the ultimate end would be "one is thinking, therefore one is" rather than "I think therefore I am"; the ego is entirely open to sceptical deconstruction.

[@THUNKShow]

If you wanted to really get into it with Descartes, check out the so-called "Cartesian Circle." The whole basis of his enterprise requires that his faculties are sufficient to evaluate the supposed truth of statements, which itself is questionable! plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#6

[@reubenbarr6438]

step one ... there is a god that wants you to see the truth ... check please.

[@reubenbarr6438]

I agree with you that " I think therefore I am " is as far as you can go in that line of thought without making assumptions that cannot be proven. I like to say there is no escape from Plato's Cave. Any conceived relationship between objective reality and what you see is a matter of faith. god himself would be omniscient only if he believed there was no other more omniscient god he/she was not aware of. such a belief on god's part would necessarily be a matter of faith. I have faith in two things. 1. there s a rational and causal relationship between what I see and what exists. 2. that everything in objective reality obeys the consistent rules of existence that we attempt to understand through the study of physics.

[@timi707_1]

Dreamt I was a human last night. Zhuang Tzu flew over and told me maybe I am a human, and only dreaming of being a butterfly. Madness???

[@wbltrack07]

The fact that the letters behind him arent straight is driving me nuts.

[@Barshki]

Nice Riven eye ball

[@THUNKShow]

Thanks! /whark sound

[@reubenbarr6438]

curiosity kills partisan politics. not cats.

[@KevinCarney]

First time viewer here, great video! Just subscribed to the channel, keep up the good work!

[@THUNKShow]

Thanks! Glad you enjoy it!

[@vincentdimichele9272]

same here

[@iliamanolov5926]

How much for the bridge?

[@iliamanolov5926]

Sacratease I got about tree fiddy.

[@EveryTimeV2]

It's also called critical thinking. That said, I'm not so easily willing to dismiss information that I can be quite certain is at least of pragmatic use for my own survival. An example; you know that fire hurts, you know that just knowing fire hurts isn't necessarily enough to stop your body's instincts from pulling out of the fire. And even if you could, why would you? Then think of this harm more abstractly with Trump's views on vaccines, you know that if you don't get these vaccines, people are going to die, and they already did when the charlatan responsible for it stressed doubt on their efficacy, Trump is in that regard literally endangering people, if he isn't -already- getting people killed for it. That's enough for me, but there's a lot more reasons to be a lot more than 'skeptical' about a Trump in office.

[@String.Epsilon]

When they told me we could make human clones in the lab, I grew a little skeptic.

[@nickreed60]

Ive been a long time atheist..but i descided to be more musical in my thought in recent years. I have chosen to believe in the spirit world and a shared 'I' reincarnation and nirvana. I chose this as it improves my day to day happiness and gives me a sense of purpose in my non purpose. There is no consequence about being wrong in your personal beliefs. But of course forcing them apon people is unethical. My beliefs are unlogicalm but i have said to myself to be less logical in areas of my life to become more balanced overall.

[@somewony]

Isn't knowledge of cognitive biases also correlated with resistance to them? Was this accounted for in the study? Curious people are (imo) more likely to have been exposed to information about cognitive biases.

[@syth406]

somewony idk go find some data don't assume you know.

[@somewony]

I don't. I'm asking.

[@syth406]

somewony ok good. I've got no clue!

[@LaylaVaughan]

I actually knew a guy who maintained he did not know for sure he existed. He maintained it the whole semester. He might have just been trolling the professor, but he was quite odd. Knowledgeable and a nice guy, but he also believed all holy scriptures were delivered by lizard-man aliens. Yeah. College, right?

[@THUNKShow]

You don't need to be in college to run into...colorful characters. ;)

[@Benji2N]

I think the more insidious problem is how to promote and maintain that state of curiosity long-term. For science related stuff, you remain curious until you read enough about the problem to understand it, at which point you begin to develop your own beliefs and all of the dangers of skepticism/blind belief that you detailed above. But for things that don't rely on empirical evidence, most notably something like your fake news example, how do I remain in a state of curiosity? It seems to me that confirmation bias rears its ugly head the minute you read your first article on any given topic, and from that point on anything else you read is in respect to your "original opinion" if you will

[@reubenbarr6438]

when a "formerly curious" scientist sees fake news and shrugs it off, that is sad, but it is not hopeless because there are millions of scientists as well as curious people. Even if there is only one scientist who discovers the truth, they can show all their erroneous peers that they were basing their judgments on a falsehood. look up the Australian doctor that discovered the link between bacteria and ulcers. scientists are by definition skeptical and curious.,But they need to implement heuristic strategies just like everyone else to go about their lives. They may prefer to read their news from scholarly journals. But you can bet there is a scholarly article on Helicobacter pylori and ulcers. speaking of which those scholarly articles need to be made public and not stuffed behind a paywall

[@starkiller23610]

What do you think of Stroud's Skepticism?

[@nicholastrapane4545]

This is a very interesting line of thought that I fervently believe - that intellectual curiosity (not just about scientific topics as you stated but about all things intellectual - conservative theories chief among them) enables a certain degree of malleability in one's own thoughts and beliefs. I think the reason this is so is because allowing oneself to truly empathize (listen well-formulated systems of procedure or belief without judgment) allows one to be at peace with the dynamism of one's own mind. It's a very powerful thing, one that makes it possible to connect with and embrace people and ideas which you may not agree without harboring resentment.

[@MisterTutor2010]

I'm skeptical of skepticism :)

[@repker]

I dunno man, I think you can be perfectly functional and still doubt literally everything, just do it pragmatically. I wouldn't say I really believe in anything, as long as belief means at some point thinking something true with insufficient information. I simply just estimate probabilities, and go with what's most probable, never giving full credence to whatever I find most probable. I don't concretely think anything I know about the world is absolutely true, that just seems impossible to know so I can't physically do it. Maybe my mind is just missing some more common human element, but not knowing anything doesn't really phase me. And I like what the findings of that study at the end suggest, an odd little bit of irony: this information would be best shown to those who aren't scientifically curious, yet those who aren't scientifically curious probably won't watch this. Not trying to be a downer ha, it's just the futility of the world is amusing sometimes :p

[@logan7x7]

I know you get this often, but I really don't understand why you don't have more subscribers. I just discovered your channel, and I've been watching hours of your videos. They're all such good quality and very interesting. Thank you for making videos!

[@AmaranthOriginal]

Well, there's a conundrum. I'd *like* to think that curiosity insulates me from things like confirmation bias, but as a curious person, I could support the idea solely from a position of confirmation bias.

[@bellaire888]

Great work. Loved the topic and video. But isn't the fact that you know you "sometimes dream about recording Thunk" completely devalue the argument you make later that "you know you are recording Thunk; therefore you must not be dreaming" since you know you record Thunk in your dreams too? I can't say "you don't know whether or not your dreaming" because my mind is separate from yours so therefore I can never truly know what you're thinking. In theory can't you be recording Thunk and also not know whether you're dreaming. To justify the fact that you're awake wouldn't it be better to use the fact that you have a memory that you woke up that day and enough time or mundane tasks have passed that it is impossible for you to be in a dream. I'm sorry if I'm just too tired to see the point or being thick.

[@MartinLichtblau]

Who is the author of Thunk? The web and social media offer not answer. P.S.: That could also be a reason why Thunk is not more popular.

[@draddadandawg3363]

I am constantly unsure if I am dreaming or in the matrix or truly alive... but I can still know if I'm recording an episode of Thunk. However, I dont know where I would be doing it

[@stevescott1032]

I get disappointed when philosophy hits a wall and has to turn to psychologists: a group of people with a collective, withered form of deconstructionist world view. I wouldn't say skepticism has the disadvantages claimed. It is hard to converse with people who have negated large bases of knowledge because some items are proven invalid to them. That is the point of communication anyway. Not to prove right and force beliefs, but to share with other people one's interpretation of life.

[@TheGokki]

Skepticism is anti-social, it is very egotistical. Rationally speaking - it is better for the society/species survival for members to be skeptics, but in a tribal setting it is bad as it goes against tribal/family influences. Being skeptical is good only for yourself and for the species, but it is bad for that middle tier of society where communities/tribes/families/clans exist.

[@peterhooper3391]

Your proposed skepticism slogan needs an upgrade: Ataraxia! Ataraxia! Ataraxia!

[@Tritdry]

The audio appears strangely out of sync. Is the audio file recorded separately to the video?

[@andrzejek2466493]

I've just recognised your great channel. Keep up with this awesome stuff. Subscribed.

[@iwangulenko4935]

again amazing material that you produce here!

[@Ownelitezorage]

It's very interesting to me how certain channels where they talk straight to the camera about complex/tedious (interesting...) topics manage to keep your attention or don't.... Has to be, at least partially, the voice... great voice, haha!

[@THUNKShow]

HEEeey! Thanks!

[@reubenbarr6438]

yes and the expository eye rolling

[@trifacto]

I like Bertrand Russell's table solution for this.

[@predicate]

could you explain it or provide a link?

[@SoccerSoccer6]

I see what you did at the end there :)

[@joaovitorcabral7224]

8:16 "Everytime they think they got the answers, i change the questions!" - Rowdy Roddy Piper.

[@landspide]

Curiosity killed the skeptical cat

[@somecuriosities]

David Thornley But satisfaction brought him back!

[@_VISION.]

What happened to the other shades? This is just one shade to me.

[@THUNKShow]

What other shades do you know of??

[@_VISION.]

@@THUNKShow academic and pyrrhonism right off the bat

[@eliasdiaz9793]

why cant I thunk?

[@THUNKShow]

Because you're high as a kite, Elias. Go sleep it off, the video will still be here when you wake up. :)

[@skewjowns]

I have to refuse to believe that higher intelligence leads to stronger confirmation bias. For my sanity.

[@syth406]

Skew Why would that threaten your sanity?

[@skewjowns]

Because my final hope for politics was that intelligent people could see reason, change their minds about important issues, and sway the opinions of their peers.

[@THUNKShow]

It's actually good news: one doesn't need to be smart, they can simply be curious! :)

[@syth406]

Skew Well that's sort of silly. Are you under the impression that All the people with opinions diametrically opposed to your own are dumb? You shouldn't be. This video has a very uplifting message. Spend your time on the scientifically curious. They're the most in tune with reality.

[@skewjowns]

No, and I never implied that. Call me Eeyore if you'd like, but I can't spin that conclusion in a positive light for myself. If non-curious intelligent people can confirm their ideas or beliefs faster and begin to replicate their ideas in lower intelligence individuals(curious or not), then reason will never prevail.

[@dianpink3019]

Im glad I'm a skeptic

[@THUNKShow]

Are you *sure* you're a skeptic? ;)

[@dianpink3019]

@@THUNKShow lol

[@JP-dh1xv]

Re-upload?

[@Naxela625]

Seems like it, I had the original open for awhile and after finishing it just a couple minutes ago, found it removed when I went to comment.

[@THUNKShow]

Yep, sorry about that - I didn't feel good about the "pidgin-logic" I put in for Hume's argument on miracles. Creative myopia is a hell of a drug.