Skepticism Is Not A Dirty Word
The term “zeteticism” is one I have long kept close to my heart. The dictionary definition is:
1: Seeking; proceeding by inquiry. Zetetic method (Math.) the method used for finding the value of unknown quantities by direct search, in investigation, or in the solution of problems or 2: A seeker; - a name adopted by some of the Pyrrhonists.
Looking up “pyrrhonism,” we find that the Greek philosopher Aenesidemus, building on the ideas of his predecessor Pyrrho, distilled skepticism to it’s bare essence. On reading the wikipedia entry, I am moved to quote it in full:
“Nothing can be known, not even this”. Pyrrhonian skeptics withhold assent with regard to non-evident propositions and remain in a state of perpetual inquiry. For example, Pyrrhonians might assert that a lack of proof cannot constitute disproof, and that a lack of belief is vastly different from a state of active disbelief. Rather than disbelieving in God, psychic powers, etc., based on the lack of evidence of such things, Pyrrhonians recognize that we cannot be certain that new evidence won’t turn up in the future, and so they intentionally remain tentative and continue their inquiry. Pyrrhonians also question accepted knowledge, and view dogmatism as a disease of the mind.
If we are at all serious about the UFO question, I can’t see a better definition of enlightened fence-sitting than this. Suddenly, skepticism doesn’t have to be a dirty word. It has been made so by the self-appointed and loudest cheerleaders for mainstream science, who essentially constitute a high priesthood of faith.
Truzzi
Disillusioned with what he saw as a betrayal of the skeptical method, Marcello Truzzi, one of the original founders of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) broke with the organization early on. He was actually the recipient of a “no confidence” vote by the governing committee, which speaks volumes about the true aims of CSICOP. He started a journal called The Zetetic Scholar to reclaim the field from what he called “pseudoskeptics”:
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new “fact.” Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of “conventional science” as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis — saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact — he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. [emphasis in original.]
The Zetetic Scholar published thoughtful articles by ufologists and paranormal researchers, as well as zetetic skeptics. The debate was open and intelligent, and showed that “forbidden” subjects could be discussed by open minds without the disdain that was (and is) evident in the popular skeptical community. Truzzi was not a publicity hound and his ideas could not be reduced to sound-bites, so very few have heard of him or his journal. Truzzi lost a fight with cancer in 2003.
This entry was posted
on Friday, February 2nd, 2007 at 12:39 am and is filed under Breaking News, UFOlogy, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- Snarly UFO (and other) Skeptics »
- Fundamentalist Skeptics In The News »
- Groundbreaking Research Still Widely Ignored »
- Fence Sitting on UFO Contact »
- Sugar Cane Crop Circle »
|
Feb 02 2007 
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:35 am
Now THIS is what the outlook of a true questioning…skeptical…mind should be; not this knee-jerk “can’t be…therefore it isn’t” or “don’t try to confuse me with facts when I’ve already made up my mind that everything is owls” dippy mindset of the CSI(COP) “sTarbaby” crowd.
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I have alawys enjoyed the; “I don’t believe anything until it has been officially denied.” mindset. Now who said that? But Greg and Bill are right. You can not claim objectivity until you are willing to consider both sides of an argument.
I hate to say, it’s UFO researchers who are often the worst of the worst when it comes to poor logical thinking. Sadly people want to ignore the facts and work the figures until it supports their own theories.
In fact I read a posting to a UFO list-serve last night where the e- mail author complained that “the blogs” were repositories for the worst kind of thinking and a “poor reflection” on the UFO research community. How sad.
“If you torture the data long enough you can make it confess to anything.”
-Chuck Missler.
Jess
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
“If you torture the data long enough you can make it confess to anything.”
-Chuck Missler
My GOD, but I love that quote!!!!!!! How true, how true!!!!
Bill
February 4th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Jess,
That’s going on a t-shirt, and I’m wearing it to the next UFO convention I’m at. Everyone who sees it will agree with the quote. Duh.
Ha!
Greg
February 4th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Bill,
It had to be said, and I was so happy to find that piece on the Pyrrhonists.