Critical Skepticism and the Media

The current and often lamentable realities of the Internet and social media have helped to call into question the veracity of much of what is published in the news media. Sadly, for all critical skeptics, this makes the effort of sorting out what’s true from what is being reported with spin and bias all the more difficult.

Sorting through inchoate and contradictory claims from various news sources is next to impossible. Very often what was reported at the point the news was breaking changes as more and more information becomes available to reporters. What we thought in the beginning can be incredibly different as time proceeds.

With this reality, a critical skeptic must be willing to be open-minded while still obeying the tenets of the ideology of doubt.

Following are a few techniques that we can apply in this brave new world of instant (and often misleading or downright incorrect) news.

According to a 2016 poll by Pew Research, 64% of
Americans find that Fake News "has caused a great
deal of confusion."
https://goo.gl/GFxS0G

• Glean your news from various and trusted sources, with the understanding that you will be able to see a larger thread of truth in the heterogeneity of this particular practice. For instance, a friend that reads four or five different newspapers a day, may have a better grasp on a current event than the friend that gets all their news from only one source.
• Always pay attention to the attributed spin of the various news sources you use. Some newspapers and online or televised news sources are well known to be “strongly left-leaning” or “very conservative”. While this reality is not inherently bad (based on your own political biases) it can be the cause for intentional misrepresentation from the particular perspective represented. To deal with this, the critical skeptic does not shy away from reading news written at any point of the political spectrum. Just because you don’t agree with the position, doesn’t mean that important information cannot be learned. This is very important to remember.
• Keep your mental waste basket handy with news bloggers and headlines. Always click through to the article and read it thoroughly. A critical skeptic must not be too easily swayed by shocking headlines or posts on social media. Much of what is posted there is meant to get your attention and distract you with emotional content such as ‘the outrage factor’. Feel free to toss any of these kinds of posts away. There’s no need to value all news in the same way, understanding that much of it is fluff meant to sell advertising.
• Finally, avoid the temptation to only or mostly follow one news source above all others. Often, we tend to gravitate to the source that agrees most with our own world view and even if we are trying to remain unbiased, our personal beliefs can cause us to be too dependent on information that helps rather than hinders the backfire effect.

By adhering to these basic techniques the critical skeptic can continue to revere the ideology of doubt and uncertainty in a world where the prevalence for fake news is becoming more and more a very real problem.

Doubt and morality: Weighing Moral Codes

Most humans have a sense of right and wrong and would, we hope, try to do the right thing, whatever the situation dictates that particular right thing to be. Immanuel Kant, in his book 'Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals' outlines the socially normative underpinning of ethical behavior and shares with the reader his categorical imperative, which states that we should act in such a way that that action could be made into a universal maxim.

Immanuel Kant 1724-1804, was a German idealist philosopher
who wrote about ethics, metaphysics and perception,
among much else. He is often considered a central thinker
influencing much modern philosophical thought.

In other words, act in a way so that your behavior can be emulated by any other person with no harm to them or others.
And, by the very lights of his own theory, we could apply Kant's categorical imperative as the only moral code the human race ever needs. But we know that various cultures and ideologies have varying moral codes and the critical skeptic has got to wade through these in order to measure their efficacy. We cannot afford to take certain moral codes at face value, any more than we can any other idea we may be faced with. The ideology of doubt demands that we carry our tools of the critical faculty with us into the many different versions of what is actually right and wrong.
The reason that we must be willing to do this, is because, once again, human credulity often leads people into unethical behavior, which, unbeknownst to them, can be harmful for everyone. The critical skeptic must carry with them a sense of what is truly ethical and moral in order to weigh the other proffered moral codes against. The categorical imperative is an excellent standard by which to make this judgement.
There are a few general rules that one can ask that help to discern whether or not a moral code is really what it claims to be.
First, we can ask who benefits. If it is not the person or their immediate family group, then it is probably not a good code.
We also need to ask what the source of the code is. Is it applicable to our day and age? Does it take into consideration current scientific understanding? If not, once again, this is not the code for you.
Finally we need to think about whether the moral code in question would indeed do well as a universal maxim. If this became the morality of every single human on earth, would the world become a better, or worse place?
Dealing with the myriad moral codes in these ways give us the ability to decide which are actually beneficial to humanity as a whole.
The critical skeptic has a moral obligation to point out immoral and unethical codes and laws even more than we have the responsibility to point out bad ideas.

Reductio ad Absurdum: The ideology of doubt and the absurd

It is a difficult thing to become comfortable with doubt as a tool and way of life as a critical skeptic. The word has a negative connotation that is hard to shake.
And to be doubted, especially when we are sincere, is even more unpleasant. Voltaire said, "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." What he means is that it is easier to be certain, no matter how silly our certainty is, than it is to doubt and mistrust our own beliefs and those of others.
Yet, it remains incredibly important to continue to work through our experiences using doubt as the over arching system through which we sift those experiences, so that we may never be rendered and reduced to absurdity.

Reductio ad absurdum is the disproof of a
proposition by showing an absurdity
to which it leads when carried to
its logical conclusion.

'Absurdity' is a wonderful word, and it is one of the main tenets of the ideology of doubt. The process of the logical tool known as reductio ad absurdum or, 'reduction to absurdity' is the means by which we can come to doubt and disbelieve certain claims based on how silly or absurd they are. 
An example of this can be found in the previous blog post about mythology. It would have been impossible for Noah to have pairs of each species of beetle on his ark, because of how many species there are. Pointing this out, renders the rest of the literalist's claims completely moot. It's just not possible and it is absurd and ridiculous to even take it seriously.
Using the reduction to absurdity as a tool and remembering its place as a tenet in the ideology of doubt, we can often find the flaws in otherwise reasonable arguments as well. Often times it is not the literalist we deal with, because those arguments are easily reduced to absurdity. More likely, the claims that are more reasonable can sometimes get through. This is why, we lead with doubt, until evidence is provided that can bear up under the weight of the claim.
In a sense, Voltaire's point could be a very good mantra to use when we aren't sure or when we're tempted to believe a claim with no evidence. It is uncomfortable to disbelieve, but it is a willing abandonment of the critical faculties to believe something with complete certainty, which is just absurd.

Skepticism and the myth

Humans generate mythology at nearly all levels of experience. We have myths for deep time describing our cultural or societal memories and we also have more subjective family myths.
This tendency toward creating myths is one of the most amazing aspects of human thought and experience. It provides a cognitive literature of sorts and enhances our feeling of participation with past events.
The lovely thing about these myths is that they are never true. They tell tales that bend the laws of physics, that change the way we know the world works. And why not? They are reflections of the human imagination. Myths show us that time and again, we are brilliant story tellers and that tendency runs through the core of our collective experiences.
Mythology is helpful because it helps (as it is intended to do) to participate in our history, without needing to read that history in a dry old text.
However, myths stop being helpful or good when people take them literally. Any myth that you can think of, from any corner of our planet, even if it has its ancient roots in real but unrecorded deeds, is only literature. It cannot and should not be considered real, true or an actual representation of what actually happened.
It can be fun to think about whether or not the myth is true, because that is the joy of literature, but when those who wish to take the myth literally begin to push the myth onto others, the problems begin.
It is not only that most myths deny or ignore real natural laws but that those who take the myth literally try to squash up the real world to fit in the limited and nonsensical world of the myth.
When this happens by an individual, there is no harm. But when this happens and the myths are forced on the young or on the credulous, terrible damage occurs.

The Coleoptera, (beetles) with about 400,000 species, is
 the largest of all orders, constituting
almost 40% of described insects and 25%
of all known animal life-forms;
new species are discovered frequently.
Noah would have had his hands full.

It may seem innocuous to tell children about the Genesis Flood or that Poseidon or Thor are real, but the consequences are terrible.
First, by instilling a literal view or interpretation on the young, we are actively suppressing their natural curiosity We force them to accept fiction as fact, which makes it much more difficult for them to discern other forms of literature from fact, as well.
But most disturbingly, it forces people to give over their critical faculties and renders them unable to think critically, challenge false claims or even realize the wondrous realities of this world that are true.
Mythology is wonderful, necessary and even entertaining, but it is never the unarguable truth and the critical skeptic must remember this in the fight against credulity, literalistic and zealous fanaticism and totalitarianism.

The ideology of doubt and the cynic

The ideology of doubt is the only ideology that a critical skeptic adheres to. It is the belief that nothing is certain, no one opinion or belief is absolute and there is no source for truth that is infallible and omnipotent. It is the ideology of Socrates who said that all he knows for certain is that he knows nothing at all.

To some, this may not leave much room for childlike awe and wonder when presented with new discoveries or when one witnesses a breathtaking sunset. There is not much wiggle room for the critical skeptic when presented with new information. We doubt it until there is enough evidence to back up the claims. So does this mean that we don't believe anything? Does this mean that we doubt the love and loyalty of family and friends?

The answer is no.

One of the critical skeptic's most valuable tools is simple hope. A cynic does not have hope that his friends truly love him. He doubts even that. The cynic has become jaded by the lack of evidence for the things he once wanted to be true. The cynic allows no light of discovery into their heart.

While it can be a valuable tool, the
critical skeptic is aware of the dangers of
cynicism.

While cynicism is without doubt a valuable tool, too much can poison the mind. Critical skepticism wants to know the truth and wants to find hope for the greater good of mankind in science and medicine.
As an example, imagine that a news broadcast has a focus piece on a new and apparently successful treatment for an especially vicious cancer. The critical skeptic goes onto the web or asks their physician to learn more about the new treatment. The cynic simply dismisses the broadcast out of hand. Why? It's just a news program, which gives it no veracity in and of itself and where is the evidence?

So we see that the difference is pronounced when we realize that the skeptic's reaction is to hope for the treatment to be real and seeks to prove that hope, whereas the cynic believes there's no evidence and therefore the search is irrelevant and useless to them.

A great way of keeping the cynicism at bay is to continue to read and research and observe the world of science and philosophy and medicine with a keen eye. There are a host of excellent resources for the critical skeptic which help to form a foundation to claims made. This way, if we continue to search and research, we can more fully appreciate the greater mechanisms of this world and of those ideas worthy of knowing.
The cynic simply doesn't care.

Intellectual autopilot

It can be frustrating when we are faced with someone who has not done the real work of forming opinions or evidence for those opinions and beliefs. Very often, it seems, one might just believe something because they feel that they are expected to, or because that's always how they've thought. Far more frustrating is someone who offers an opinion and cannot give any reason why they believe it.

The irony is that this person often can't to see the importance of having well founded thoughts and opinions. However this is very often not a malicious or evil intent that leads them to this point. It might be that they have never been taught to be skeptical or to think critically or that they simply didn't know that they weren't thinking critically already.

Switch your intellectual autopilot to
disengage.

Whatever the cause of intellectual autopilot, the ramifications of living this way can be incredibly dangerous the person and to others.

The duty of the critical skeptic is not only to work to guard oneself from the dangers of intellectual autopilot (we are all susceptible) but to help eliminate it in others.
Learning how to catch oneself in intellectual autopilot can also help to detect it in others. The real trick is helping people to see that there is nothing wrong with learning how to reevaluate their convictions when presented with evidence to the contrary of their firmly held beliefs. It is important to anticipate the backfire effect, to make no judgments about their beliefs (no matter how misinformed they are) and to be compassionate. It can be both a little embarrassing and cause guilt to be shown the error on one's thinking.
The reality is, that if successful, it can be exhilarating to be freed from bad ideas and misconceptions. 

The Critical Skeptic and the Scientific Claim

Imagine that you've spent the last few years working to prove a theory. You worked long into the night on countless occasions, sacrificed time with family and friends and had not a few moments where you thought you were going to tear up your research and give up.
Then, finally, you finish your work and submit your results to your peers at the university and wait for their approval to publish, which they finally give, only to have someone come along with evidence that directly refutes what your work claimed. 
What would you do?
This scenario is a common one. Young graduate or PhD students have labored for countless hours only to find that their hypothesis has been neatly disproved by another scientist. One can imagine the internal turmoil and the trashing of offices or labs that might be a symptom of having been proved wrong.
And yet, scientists don't really mind this. Most of the scientific community wants to be proved wrong, because what that means is that they've helped to put in another rung on the ladder to greater discovery. 
This might seem unbelievable, but if you pay close enough attention to any of the scientific educators now prevalent on TV and social media, they almost seem to be excited for someone to come along with a new theory that disproves long-held scientific theories.
From time-to-time, after long hours and huge sacrifices, a discovery comes along that doesn't refute but proves a theory.
For instance, Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity postulated that there are ripples in spacetime. The math was good, but humans had no way to prove this hypothesis until nearly one hundred years later. Scientists at the Laser Interferometer-Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) operated by Cal-Tech and MIT discovered and proved Einstein's prediction by recording these waves from a cataclysmic event in deepest space. When two black holes collided, they sent monstrous ripples through the fabric of spacetime. LIGO has the first-ever recorded evidence of this amazing prediction. Albert Einstein, perhaps the greatest thinker of the last century and certainly the brightest, had his math proved correct by scientists hoping to do just that.

An artistic simulation of the two black holes in question
colliding.

However, the vindication of long-unproved mathematical hypothesis is rather rare. Many more such hypotheses are discarded after having been proved incorrect, however excellent they were in their scientific efficacy.
This is why skepticism is such an important part of the scientific method. We make scientific claims based on evidence collected until those claims are refuted by stronger evidence. It is only by rigorous testing, fact-checking and hours of research that these claims are ever even considered to be viable. 
What if, you may well ask, LIGO had proven Einstein's theory wrong? It would have equally revolutionized the thinking about general relativity.
It must be said that few of the rest of us are scientists in this sense. We don't work at observatories and we don't spend huge portions of our lives sorting out the math to prove or disprove scientific claims.
Still, even in our everyday lives, such claims come to us from a thousand places. There are a million theories a day and many of them seem viable at first glance.
Credulous humans may want to fall into the trap of believing everything they've been told, but the critical skeptic knows better.
Even an extraordinary discovery like the one proving Einstein correct, needs to be scrutinized.
This is why the critical skeptic employs words like, 'apparently' and 'allegedly' and 'supposedly' at all times in these cases.
"Apparently, LIGO has proved Einstein's general relativity theory about spacetime waves correct."
This way, when the next discovery comes along that may disprove further hypotheses made by Einstein, we're ready.
Skepticism is the main motivating factor of scientific discovery. And it also helps us to keep an open mind while continuing the search for truth in all fields of thought and science.