Jeff at Rigorous Intuition put together a nice post on skepticism and how it can sometimes lead paradoxically to dogmatism. He targets such organizations as the Skeptics Society and the Skeptic’s Dictionary. Both represent a style of thinking that I’ve often bumped my head against many times in my own inquiries. That is, scientific skepticism.

Wikipedia as always presents a good basic grounding for the debate by defining scientific skepticism as “a scientific, or practical, epistemological position (or paradigm) in which one questions the veracity of claims unless they can be scientifically verified.” I like the basic general idea here: question things until you can prove them valid or invalid. But in my experience when I put my questioning hat on in a serious way, it’s hard to take it off. In other words, I begin not only to question things until I have proof, but continue to question them after. I even question the concept of what really constitutes proof, and how come sometimes proof for me is not proof for you. In other words, I think the ultimate goal of skepticism is even to be skeptical of itself.

To some people it might seem like a ridiculous vortex where ordinary things suddenly lose meaning, and things you’ve always taken for granted start to fall apart. It must seem silly to outsiders even. Why question questions? Personally, I’ve found this act of dissolving my beliefs and assumptions to be extremely powerful. It’s sharpened my own thinking and helped me to examine not only what my biases are, but where they came from and the effects they have on me and other people. Breaking down old structures has also helped me release a lot of blocked creative energy and move it into really exciting new directions.

But I certainly didn’t invent this approach. In fact, it’s been around for centuries. The originator of philosophical skepticism seems to be the Greek philosopher Pyrrho. As opposed to scientific skepticism, in the philosophical variety “one critically examines whether the knowledge and perceptions one has are true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have true knowledge.” It’s also sometimes called methodological skepticism or Pyrrhonian skepticism. The goal of Pyrrho and his followers was a state of mind called “ataraxia”, or the peace of mind brought about by complete suspension of judgement. Sextus Empiricus was a Roman who followed several centuries later in the Pyrrhonian mold. Seems like both of these dudes would fit in well with what we’re doing here:

He argued that to reach the state of ataraxia (approximately ‘peace of mind’), philosophers must first learn to ’suspend judgement’, that is, to believe to an equal degree any claim and its denial. Unlike the skeptics of Plato’s Academy, Pyrrhoneans did not think that nothing is knowable. The claim that nothing is knowable struck them as a sort of dogmatism. Instead, they suspended judgement about whether or not anything is knowable.

According to another website, Pyrrho believed that this approach to skepticism formed a way of life which looked something like this (where “>” means “leads to”):

Puzzle > mental disturbance, distress > investigation, inquiry > discovery of apparently balanced plausibility > suspension of judgment > tranquility, peace of mind

Interestingly, we find virtually this same methodology outlined in the second saying of the gnostic Gospel of Thomas:

2. Jesus said, “Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]”

Skepticism, when taken to it’s absolute extreme, I think satisfies my quest for an ideology that intentionally destroys itself. It also seems to be one of the few systems which welcomes questions, and which criticism actually strengthens it rather than diminshing it. This also seems to feed into what Levi-Strauss was talking about with regards to mythical thinking in the 1960’s:

Myth thinks by providing “a logical model capable of overcoming a contradiction”. Since this is an impossible achievement, myth “grows spiral-wise until the intellectual impulse which has produced it is exhausted. Its growth is a continuous process, whereas its structure remains discontinuous.

It’s interesting that many of the pillars of modern scientific thought were methodological skeptics, practicing analytical paths of radical doubt. Rene Descartes is one of the best examples (I’ll talk about him more later). Descartes’ axiom “I think therefore I am” (”cogito ergo sum” in Latin) was the only statement which he believed he could have absolute indubitable knowledge of. He then used it to create a system of mind/body dualism, and even tentatively “proved” the existence of God. Or so he thought any way. I don’t really agree with all of Descartes’ conclusions or rational machinations, but I like his general style of inquiry. I’m curious exactly where science abandoned the “pure” form of skepticism in favor of things which could be proven by scientific method?

A commenter on Jeff’s original article about scientific skepticism offered the following:

Science as we know it arose in large part because people couldn’t handle that level of doubt. They wanted *something* they could rely on completely, and if it was only experimentally verifiable theories about the physical would that could be taken as reliable to that degree, that was all they would believe in.

They also suggest that theories such as relativity and quantum physics have once again thrown scientific thinking into a tailspin about absolute truth and proof. I’d also add that culturally the clash and fusion of so many belief systems in the modern world has brought us to just such another period of instability. This wouldn’t be news to Pyrrho though, as he founded his philosophy after travelling to India with Alexander the Great. Having been exposed to so many really strong schools of thought from the Greek to the Hindu forced him into the position of philosophical skepticism. Maybe it can offer a similar solution to our own situation as well. It’s not an easy path to follow, but I can guarantee that it’s an extremely stimulating one. It’s really the most challenging project I’ve ever taken on. I’ll keep you posted as to whether or not it leads to “ataraxia” or peace of mind. So far, it’s definitely helping though.