3 ms·

is there any difference between "intellectual contrarianism" and "true skepticism" aside from whether or not you agree with the conclusions being reached (or pe

• jfengel 5y ago
  The difference is intellectual honesty. If you're truly willing to consider the evidence, and not just seek out things to reinforce your pre-existing conclusion, then you can be skeptical. Otherwise you're just contrarian. The problem is that if somebody is dishonest, there's no way to convince them that they're being dishonest. Either they know it, and refuse to admit it, or they're so dishonest that they've completely lost track of what it means to objectively evaluate evidence. So it's the kind of thing that experts in the domain will all be able to discern, while those same experts will be thought of as conspirators by the contrarian (and reinforced by their equally non-expert circle of trusted acquaintances). About the only hope you have at that point is noticing when the conspiracy is so large that it's simply not reasonable to expect it to persist. But since they get reinforcement from their large circle of non-experts, they usually conclude that the same logic applies both ways.
• shkkmo 5y ago
  Yes, absolutely. I already explained what that difference is but let me go further since you didn't understand: If you only apply your skepticism to polular narratives but not to your pet theories, then you are not truely a skeptic. It doesn't matter what you believe, it just matters that you approach what you believe with an equal or higher level of skepticism than you approach what others believe.
  • adamrezich 5y ago
    I see, and I agree completely!