Scrutinizing Skepticism—Part 2

So some degree of skepticism and discernment can be very useful to us. You can hear, from time to time, public school officials talk about teaching children the skills of “critical thinking,” of helping kids to become discerning young people. They usually mean teaching children to think for themselves, to be judicious, aware, observant. That sounds nice, but in fact that is quite different from what most public schools actually do; they encourage just one way of considering things (dogma), promote complete acceptance of authority, and then test students in a manner that inculcates in them the belief that they are either right or wrong in response to questions (that is, there are no shades of gray or even alternative viewpoints to the authorized one). That's not critical thinking.

Considering the arguments above, it seems to me that they offer an explanation of why certain segments of society—most often the pious and faithful—have traditionally disapproved of skeptics: skeptical ideas and doubt can threaten their beliefs. 
 
In fact, throughout history, neither the state nor religious people have been sympathetic to skeptics, because they cast doubt on society's beliefs. Especially in America, where the state and Christianity hold many of the same convictions, skepticism is often not welcome—sometimes along with its cohorts, discernment and critical thinking. At least we have not yet come to the point where we methodically jail skeptics, as they do in Turkey and China.

I believe there is another kind of person who also thinks skeptically, as well as discerningly; they are called prophets. Throughout history prophets have doubted and questioned the beliefs and behavior of mainstream society. When they've spoken up about their views and challenged orthodoxy, they've often become even less popular than skeptics.

Furthermore, I also think that a historian can benefit from a good dose of skepticism. My favorite historian for several years now is Yuval Noah Harari, who teaches history at Hebrew University in Israel and has written two profound books: Sapiens and Homo Deus. (In fact, I discovered Harari in a MOOC he taught several years ago.) Harari examines history through the eyes of a skeptic. He's both discerning and a very clear thinker. Years of lengthy meditation retreats have sharpened his mind. His particular strength is to examine history, connect the dots, and then interpret current events with that knowledge. That's the nature of his first book (Sapiens) listed above. He then goes on in the second book (Homo Deus) to connect the dots of today's events and then project what the future will be like.

So, I believe skepticism and a dose of doubt offers me some valuable thoughts on how to perceive the world around me. Healthy doubt can be useful—especially when coupled with careful examination of that world, and furthered by a good dose of curiosity. I can become a skeptic, without having to become a card-carrying atheist, or without denying the possibility of possessing any kind of knowledge; because skepticism is not necessarily about distrust or being a heretic. It's just as much about curious inquiry and discernment. So let those kids in school be taught critical thinking. Maybe they'll even grow up to become moderate skeptics

Namaste Gnome

I am building this sculpture, which I call my "Namaste Gnome," out of concrete block overlaid with strong mortar. It's almost completed. He's about four feet (1.2 m) tall. Click to enlarge.

Scrutinizing Skepticism—Part 1

I am currently taking a MOOC (Massive Online Open Course) on skepticism from a Dutch university. It is a topic that has interested me for a long time, but as yet have not delved into. Although I sometimes have felt attracted to skepticism, I also know that it has often been a controversial issue throughout history, so there's a bit of a stigma attached to it that has caused me to hesitate about exploring it further. I'm also aware that skepticism is a very complex and broad topic, so I realize that I've known too little about it. Hence, when I saw this MOOC, I signed up.

Before going further, let me define skepticism, so it's clear what the topic of this blog is, since skepticism is so broad, as well as being controversial. Some people have even vehemently opposed it. My dictionary defines a skeptic as “a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.” As a prime example, many skeptics throughout modern history have questioned the beliefs of Christianity and other religions. As a result, Western skepticism has tussled with Christian dogma for several centuries. Thus, many Christians have viewed skeptics as unwelcome agnostics, if not actively opposing them as being atheists. Digging a little deeper in history, my dictionary defines an ancient skeptic as a “philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in any given sphere.” That's a pretty radical position!

The dictionary goes on to define being skeptical as “not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.” Traditionally, skepticism is “the philosophy relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.” The root of the word skepticism is the Greek word skeptikos, which is “inquiry” or “doubt.”

Thus, skepticism comes in various degrees—from modest doubt to firm disbelief in even the possibility of knowledge. So if I identify with skepticism, how mild or radical am I going to be? Am I doubtful of certain prevailing beliefs, or do I think that all knowledge is useless?

I have written before on this blog about the usefulness of having some degree of doubt about what we see and hear from the media and from statements made by others. Thus it seems to me that a modicum of doubt can be useful. In contrast, people who are gullible are, according to the dictionary, “easily persuaded to believe something; they are easily fooled and deceived.” In today's environment, there is so much false information coursing through the internet and other media, that one needs some discernment sprinkled with a modest dose of doubt, in order to avoid being gullible and naive.

More on skepticism next time...

Hung Up

Yesterday morning I was awakened by our dog barking fiercely at something. Investigating, I saw this standoff at the edge of the garden. Our dog had cause a raccoon to climb a garden fence post for safety. They maintained their standoff for a couple of hours. The raccoon was getting tired. As I approached, I watched a bird land on the coon's back and begin pulling out hair to make a nest. The raccoon was too tired to protest. I called the dog in; the raccoon vacated the scene. Click to enlarge.

Twice Transgressed

There is a disturbing behavior that is often exhibited by many of us when we observe someone being victimized: rather than focus on the perpetrator and censure that person, we will often instead blame the victim. A woman is raped and people tend to ask what she did to invite the attack. A destitute homeless person is spotted on the street and we wonder if they are just a lazy bum who deserves that fate.

Why do we do this? Are we humans heartless beings who have no compassion for the victim? Isn't it bad enough that the sufferer was violated once? Why do we double their misery by accusing them of provoking their affliction? Most of us are most likely to be inclined to feel that the offense being experienced is unfortunate and even unwarranted, yet we still easily fall into the habit of blaming them for their troubles.

Psychologists tell us that no, we're not merciless. It's that, in these situations, we tend to adopt what's referred to as the “just-world bias.” This belief is prevalent in humans. It stems from the fact that we want to believe in a just world—that fairness prevails, that in the end the human world is an equitable place. This belief is driven partly by the fact that we humans want predictability; we don't like arbitrariness or injustice. We want to believe that we all get our just deserts—and many people believe that upon death, those who were good go to heaven, while the bad people deserve hell. We are finally rewarded or punished for our deeds. Justice prevails.

But the human world is often not fair. The fact is that some wicked people fare well, while some righteous folk get dumped on—think of Job in the Hebrew Bible. The Bible's psalms also frequently lament this unmerited result.
 
So when we encounter an injustice, when we see an innocent person suffer, it challenges our just-world bias; it creates a kind of cognitive dissonance in our head that is very uncomfortable. The result: rather than change our belief in a just world, it's easier to blame the victim. Maybe they aren't innocent; maybe they deserved what they got.

Let's consider if the belief in a just world is warranted. Let's turn to the natural world. The just-world belief leads some people to conclude that nature is often unjust. I do not agree when people consider natural acts—like earthquakes or floods—to be some form of punishment. I do not agree when people consider the killing of an antelope by a lion to be cruel. The natural world cannot be considered to be either just or unjust—it simply is. These acts do not need our trying to read some meaning into them.

On the other hand, the human world is quite often unjust. Dictators get away with murder. Bankers bilk the people and live a carefree life. The poor struggle to survive, as rich politicians cut welfare and export jobs elsewhere. I believe that injustice is very often common in the human world.

Researchers in this area find that people who feel a strong connection to a group are often more inclined to blame the victim, because they absorb the values of the group. And if the group has a just-world bias, it's very hard for its members to disagree with the group, because group beliefs can become fixed and rigid, and thus less likely to be challenged. Members are not inclined to go against the group's creed. This is especially true of conservative groups. 
 
I don't think that there is an easy answer to this problem. We all prefer to believe that the world is just. In 1965 Martin Luther King, Jr, in a speech in Alabama, said that “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Was he right? Sometimes it seems doubtful; sometimes it seems that the moral arc of the human universe bends away from justice. Whatever the trend, it can help if we try to accept that iniquities do happen and turn our attention more to the perpetrator as we develop compassion for victims.

Sedum Spider

I caught this daddy longlegs spider on the sedum plant in bloom. Click to enlarge.

Fire Frustrations

During those colder months of the year I get frequent reminders of the challenges we face by living the way we do here in the woods: a simplified, frugal way of life. Of course, there are overwhelming rewards that come from the way we live, and I've written several times about them. Simply being able to live in this environment and live close to the land is enough of a blessing to make all the struggles worthwhile.

What do I mean in this posting by the frustrations, challenges, and struggles of our lifestyle? It has mostly to do with all the labor that is required... the monotony and drudgery of menial tasks, the forgoing of certain luxuries, the loneliness of not being able to share your experiences with others doing similar things, etc.

An example came to mind on a cold evening lately, as I was engaged in heating the outdoor tub for our twice-weekly hot soak. To accomplish this bath, I feed an underwater aluminum wood stove chunks of wood for nearly two hours, until the water temperature reaches—and then hopefully hovers for a couple of hours—at about 102^o F (about 40^o C). A degree or two above 102 and the water threatens to cook you. A degree or two lower and you can't relax—you feel chilled, especially on a cold winter's night. The temperature must be narrowly controlled.

There are several variables that I need to account for, in reaching that narrow temperature window: the initial temperature of the water, the outdoor air temperature, the quality of the wood, how well I stack the logs in the stove, and how attentive I am during the heating process. I have over two decades of experience of preparing our hot tubs, so I now balance these variables far better than I did many years ago, but the challenge remains. Poor quality wood will cause the heating process to seem endless—especially if my attention wanders. Rather than enter the healing waters at 7 pm, say, it's going on 8 before the bath is ready. I can become very impatient and grumpy during that extra hour.

I can't help at these times but think about those folks who have a modern, high-tech hot tub and the convenience it brings them. For them the tub sits waiting—held continually at exactly the perfect temperature—for them to jump into at a moment's impulse. No gathering and splitting of wood; no lengthy feeding of a stove; no concern for the air temperature—just jump in and enjoy. Luxury is waiting at the touch of a button.

Of course, such a hot tub experience is completely contradictory to the way we live. Their kind of luxury is definitely not frugal, but calls for a significant and ongoing monetary expense. But such a convenience also comes with other costs. To acquire a labor-saving high-tech hot tub, for example, I may gain control and quick accessibility over my bathing process, but I also lose another kind of control, because I do not have enough self-sufficiency or the freedom to be as fully in charge of my experience. In that situation, I would not understand nor would I be capable of maintaining that modern hot tub. If something went wrong, I'd be forced to call in an expert who would charge me a steep fee to get it working again. Those initial and ongoing repair costs simply do not fit with a frugal lifestyle.

There are times when I become frustrated with the time, effort, and complexity that this simple lifestyle calls for. It can be very inconvenient. And I confess that sometimes I daydream about things being easier, but I never second guess or doubt the advantages of the way we live. I just sometimes get irritated that the wood I'm burning tonight is of poor quality and dammit!, I was hoping to sink into those healing waters an hour ago! But hey, what's my hurry? Do I have some fancy social function to go to?