“Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.”

As such, this does not leave completely outside the realm, the area of ethics. Especially with due consideration of the philosophical root of critical thinking in the arts of logic, reasoning, and inference for claims or statements.

As long as a domain is handled with proper professional discipline, and considering that “skepticism” itself is an offshoot of Socratic inquiry methodologies …

How much claim does one have to being a skeptic, if they ignore the foundation of the discipline itself?

In other words, I should go away and leave you alone?

The thing is, I’m generally supportive of the aims of the (narrow) “skeptical movement”, even if I’m . . .um . . . skeptical of some of the dogmatic epistemological and, yes, metaphysical commitments of many of its most prominent adherents. (Scientific naturalism is a metaphysical doctrine, dress it up as you will.)

My question, stemming from this post and its predecessor, was only whether it’s okay for self-described scientific skeptics and their fellow travelers to bring up this sort of thing in public, to question or criticize one another on these grounds.

From the replies I’ve received, I’d have to say the answer is “no”.

The skeptic movement, I hope, promotes scientific skepticism, not philosophical skepticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
“Empirical or scientific skeptics do not profess philosophical skepticism. Whereas a philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.”

I think my questions germane, in that I was trying to find the limit cases of skeptics criticizing other skeptics, in public or in private.

But I’ll stop now.

and here i had you pegged as a witty young whippersnapper.

I am trying to ask about the scope of the meaning of the term “skepticism”, and you reply by brushing my question aside with the assertion of a very narrow understanding of what skepticism can be.

I don’t wish to sound dismissive. It just happens that I actually advocate a very narrow understanding of what skepticism should be.

There are many schools of thought on this topic. I am one of those who favor a very focussed, traditional view: the skeptics movement as an organized attempt to A) promote science literacy, and B) pursue consumer protection in regards to paranormal and pseudoscientific claims (investigation of claims, publication of results, consumer advocacy and lobbying based on that literature). You can read an essay in which I make my pitch for that limited scope for skepticism. But in any event we’re getting very far off topic from Steven’s post. Perhaps another venue at another time?

These are not scientific questions, and we cannot answer them by an appeal to empirical fact. We have to think, and discuss; offer arguments and replies, attempt to reframe the problem as possible; eventually, we may seek some common ground.

That discourse can be skeptical, I would say, as long a we unwilling to settle for obvious answers, as long as we are willing to ask the next, more difficult question, as long as we demand clear thinking and cogent argument.

(This is how I approach my own field of study, environmental ethics, much to the annoyance of my colleagues. I won’t let the simply posit, for example, that anthropocentrism is bad.)

I am also unwilling to accept dogmatic empiricism or positivism in approach to questions about the scope and limits of human understanding.

So, what dogmas are you (all) harboring?