Showing posts from August, 2009

Systematic Skepticism

In my last installment I promised to “make a case for a form of skepticism that can accommodate the idea of a complete lack of true knowledge, but still functions as a stable platform for analysis, debate, morality, and all the other niceties of human interaction.”
I will do so after some definitional construals. I’m going to be critiquing and expanding two words here: Skepticism and Agnosticism.

Last time I recklessly accused the self-proclaimed Skeptic Michael Shermer of abusing the word ‘skeptic’ by using it selectively to bash ideas he doesn’t like while failing to test his own presuppositions as ruthlessly. (At least I’ve never seen this from him.) Now I don’t want to single this guy out. He’s not a horrible person or a liar. He’s just doing what everyone does. That is: exalt what he likes and tear down what he dislikes. I also want to be clear that I understand MY definit…