Skeptical person is a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

“You’re Not Being Open Minded”

This is an all too frequent criticism of skepticism. I find that in most people’s minds the word skeptic is steadfastly bound to another word such as cynic, naysayer, or contrarian. What makes being a skeptic different from these other terms? I offer my own definition:

A skeptic is a person who withholds judgment on beliefs, claims, and topics, until the relevant evidence is examined, regardless of previous beliefs etc. Only under a verification of said evidence will a claim etc. be considered valid.

What a skeptic is not, however, is a person who will refuse to change their mind in the face of overwhelming, and reliably contrary evidence. As a skeptic myself, I try to align myself with those who have a hard-line into the consensus opinions concerning science, medicine, etc. This, of course, places the burden of trust upon our scientists. This is where many people have their doubts. Largely the media’s fault, the portrayal of science and fact is purely sensationalist. And furthermore, most media outlets fall victim to falsely balancing opposing viewpoints. It is understandable that when a news story gives equal weight to the one “expert” who claims, for example, that the Earth is flat, in contrast to the majority of scientists who disagree with him, and lets the viewer decide, it is hard to not be confused as to what is fact and what is fiction.

This false balance then translates into mistrust of good science. People have been conditioned to give equal weight to these extremist viewpoints, and then, for example, disagree with 99% of climate scientists that global climate change is happening and is caused by human activity. Somehow hearing a lone proponent spout off about a little known viewpoint is enough to destabilize the entire debate.

Claims vs. Theories

Therefore, as a skeptic, placing trust is science is a prerequisite. If you can trust biology enough to allow an anesthesiologist to bring you to the brink of death for your surgery on infinitely delicate tissues that make your body function, why can’t you also agree with 99% of biology that knows evolution is a fact? Consensus opinion among those who have dedicated their lives to understanding the world is what we trust in everyday of our lives. But when it comes to more sensitive topics like evolution and climate change, why doesn’t that trust transfer over?

A true skeptic will completely change their mind on a subject if valid, tested, and agreed upon evidence presents itself. Biology would completely redo the whole theory of evolution if just one modern rabbit (for the sake of argument) was found in a geologic strata that belonged to the dinosaurs. The reason that the theory persists is because no valid evidence has been found to disprove it. The strength of a scientific claim is directly taken from how much it can defend itself from criticism. The theory of evolution, for example, is one of science’s most fleshed out explanations for natural (biological) phenomena because it has not been disproved in close to 200 years. And trust me, people have tried. Allow me to make a quick digression to explain a common misconception. The scientific meaning of a theory is as follows:

In scientific usage, the term “theory” is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains.

Simply put, a scientific theory is not an educated guess, as many laymen assume. A scientific theory is an overarching explanation of a spectrum of empirical phenomena that is consistent with all the evidence since discovered. I will use “theory” or “theories” to refer to the scientific definition of theory from now on. All accepted theories have gone through the skeptical wood chipper of doubt, criticism, and argument. That is why they are still around. The consensus opinion on these theories is as solid as the evidence they are built upon and, most importantly, theories evolve and adapt to changing evidence.

Skeptic Barometer

Forget about the weird stigma you place on the name, and try to un-associate the word with cynics. Being cautious of an amazing claim, especially when it deals with personal beliefs, should be something of a virtue. Being a skeptic means using critical thinking and rationality to make sense of the world. A great introduction to skepticism can be found in my Brian Brushwood post, where he explains some core modalities of the skeptic community.