Dave Rubin and Michael Shermer argue that skepticism, defined as suspended judgment and a demand for evidence, is vital for countering the uninformed electorate and cynical media pundits who prioritize indignation over facts. They emphasize questioning political claims during election cycles and applying self-skepticism to avoid blind faith, noting that while life's ultimate answers remain unknown, seeking truth through reason and direct human connection remains our most significant trait. [Automatically generated summary]
I think a healthy dose of skepticism is one of the most important attributes one can have, but also saying most of us could use a little more of.
You guys know I'm big on definitions around here, so let's actually define the word skepticism before we go any further.
An attitude of doubt or disposition to incredulity, either in general or toward a particular object.
The doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain.
The method of suspended judgment, systemic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics.
Doubt concerning basic religious principles as immortality, providence, and revelation.
So all skepticism really is, then, is the desire for more information before making a judgment.
This seems like a really simple and pretty obvious concept, yet we're so lacking it in our public discourse.
We're so quick to dismiss people the second they say something we don't like, we ignore evidence when it doesn't fit our narrative, and too often we pick sides when we don't really know the facts.
This is why pundits on cable networks, radio, and online media are yelling all the time.
Instead of making a compelling argument based on fact and reason, they just yell with righteous indignation so you think that what they're saying must be true.
After all, they're really fired up, so they must have a true and decent cause, right?
Well, usually the opposite is true.
Of course, it's not just these talking heads who could use a healthy dose of skepticism.
We're in the midst of an election year, so all of us should be skeptical of everything each one of these politicians running for office says.
We shouldn't take their word for it.
Instead, we should question whether what they're saying is true and take the time to learn the facts.
Politicians prey on an uninformed, uninterested, and non-skeptical electorate.
It's our job as citizens to make them more honest and more forthright.
Pretty sure we all know they're not going to do that on their own.
Going even deeper, it's not just pundits and politicians we should be skeptical about, but it's also our very selves.
The word skeptic even has a slight tinge of negativity to it, right?
Like, oh, he's a skeptic, you better watch out for him.
All the skeptic actually wants is more information to form an opinion on the world in a rational way using facts and proven methods.
Sure, that's not as comforting as blind faith, and it certainly isn't as easy, but perhaps the satisfaction is in the journey of questioning.
My guest this week is Michael Shermer, an author who has written much on this subject and is a thought leader in the skeptic movement.
Using science and provable methods, he talks about how we can have morality that is based in fact, not fiction.
It's a harder road, but it is one that more and more people seem to be taking.