tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123899360714390074.post358689997428637999..comments2024-03-22T06:23:38.156+00:00Comments on Birmingham Skeptics: So You Think You're a Skeptic?Birmingham Skepticshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13457491922023498093noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7123899360714390074.post-32962489499115050592011-05-17T10:58:48.073+01:002011-05-17T10:58:48.073+01:00I wanted to comment on this yesterday, but had to ...I wanted to comment on this yesterday, but had to go to the Cardiff Skeptics meetup and so wasn't near a PC.<br /><br />The article is interesting, and any discussion of the historical aspects of skepticism are welcome. However, I feel the comparison of philosophical skepticism (what you call "classical" skepticism) with the modern meaning of skepticism is like comparing apples and oranges.<br /><br />Philosophical skepticism is an interesting epistemological critique which is just as relevant now as it was back in the times of the Ancient Greeks. It may actually be even more relevant now when we consider its implications on inductive reasoning and therefore the scientific method. Modern skepticism accepts certain axioms which place its roots in empiricism and naturalism more so than philosophical skepticism. They are both skepticism of some "sort" but, in a way, are actually in conflict because a modern skeptic would argue that science or methodological naturalism can lead to knowledge, whereas a philosophical skeptic would doubt the very assumptions that those methods are founded upon. That's not to say that a modern skeptic does not ponder questions of epistemology, just that when defending our skeptical position we argue using science.<br /><br />I hope I didn't ramble too much! Keep up the good work.John Stablerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040887129341211890noreply@blogger.com