GaryJJSpate (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{PhenomenonInfobox |name=Skepticism |type=Methodological stance / movement |field=Philosophy, psychology |also_known_as=Scientific skepticism, the sceptical movement |notable_case=Founding of CSICOP (1976) |status=Mainstream methodological position }} '''Skepticism''' (in the specific sense relevant to The Vault, usually called '''scientific skepticism''') is the practice of applying critical thinking and the scientific method to evaluate extraordinary claims — inclu..." |
GaryJJSpate (talk | contribs) Migrate PhenomenonInfobox to InfoboxPhenomenon |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{InfoboxPhenomenon | ||
|name=Skepticism | |name=Skepticism | ||
|type=Methodological stance / movement | |type=Methodological stance / movement | ||
Latest revision as of 13:38, 5 August 2026
Skepticism (in the specific sense relevant to The Vault, usually called scientific skepticism) is the practice of applying critical thinking and the scientific method to evaluate extraordinary claims — including paranormal, pseudoscientific, and pseudomedical claims — requiring empirical evidence, reproducibility, and falsifiability before accepting them.[1] It is distinct from philosophical skepticism, which concerns universal doubt about the possibility of knowledge itself; scientific skepticism instead focuses on testable claims and the standard of evidence needed to accept them.[1]
Core principles
The burden of proof
Scientific skepticism generally holds that the burden of proof rests with whoever makes a claim, rather than with those questioning it — a position closely associated with the aphorism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," often called the Sagan standard after astronomer Carl Sagan, who popularised it in his 1979 book Broca's Brain and the 1980 television series Cosmos.[2] Sagan is generally understood to have adapted the phrase from sociologist Marcello Truzzi, who had written in 1975 that "an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof," itself echoing earlier formulations by figures including philosopher David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, and Pierre-Simon Laplace.[2]
Occam's razor
Skeptical evaluation is closely associated with Occam's razor — the principle that, among explanations equally consistent with the evidence, the one requiring the fewest additional unproven assumptions should generally be preferred.[1]
Replication and falsifiability
Scientific skeptics place particular weight on independent replication, arguing that a claimed effect — such as ESP or Psychokinesis — should be demonstrable by other researchers under similarly controlled conditions, and that a claim incapable of being tested or potentially disproven falls outside the domain science can properly evaluate at all.[1]
History of the organised movement
The modern organised skepticism movement is generally traced to 1976, when philosopher Paul Kurtz founded the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) — now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) — with support from figures including Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Ray Hyman, James Randi, and Martin Gardner.[1] CSICOP launched Skeptical Inquirer magazine as its flagship publication, and the organisation, along with its members, became closely associated with public investigation and debunking of paranormal, alternative-medicine, and pseudoscientific claims. Hyman went on to found the annual Skeptic's Toolbox workshop in 1989, training participants directly in the movement's investigative methods.
Skeptical figures and organisations on The Vault
Numerous figures documented elsewhere on The Vault are directly connected to the organised skeptical movement, including Ray Hyman (co-founder of CSICOP, investigator of Cold Reading and the Ganzfeld Experiment), Susan Gerbic (founder of Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia and investigator of Tyler Henry), and Ciarán O'Keeffe (a sceptical parapsychologist associated with Most Haunted). Related concepts documented separately include Anomalistic Psychology, the academic field studying why people report and believe in paranormal experiences without assuming any are genuine, and Cold Reading, the specific technique skeptics most often cite to explain apparently accurate psychic readings.
Criticism of the Sagan standard
The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" has itself drawn academic criticism, principally on the grounds that Sagan never precisely defined what counts as "extraordinary." Critics have argued the ambiguity allows the standard to be invoked selectively — sometimes used to dismiss claims that are genuinely well-supported but simply unfamiliar, rather than claims that are actually contradicted by existing evidence.[3]
See also
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 "Scientific skepticism."Grokipedia.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 "Sagan standard."HandWiki.
- ↑ "Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?."ResearchGate.