There is a new and promising blog: Skepticblog.org. It's an initiative by Steven Novella, Michael Shermer, Brian Dunning, Kirsten Sanford, Mark Edward, Phil Plait, Ryan Johnson, and Yau-Man Chan.
This post introduces the site. This is the site´s aim: "It is a serious group skeptically-themed science blog, and represents a collaboration across many of the biggest institutions of organized skepticism. From the outset we will post daily blog entries, and hope to build this site into an important hub of skeptical activity online."
My view is that skepticism and the solution-focused approach go together well. Both take the idea of Occam's razor very seriously which states "that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory" (quoted from wikipedia). Skepticists examine and often debunk extraordinary claims of on topics such as U.F.O.s, paranormal phenomena, conspiracy theories, and alternative medicine. They are often able to prove that there are simple natural explanations for observed phenomena. Skepticists will weed out many complex and wild assumptions and help to find simple explanations of reality.
The solution-focused approach is inspired by Occam's razor too, in the sense that it leaves out anything that does not add to the process of making progress in the direction of the desired situation. An example is that when Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg and their colleagues discovered that leaving out problem-cause analysis and diagnosis out of the therapeutic process did not lead to any damage (it only helped clients to make progress quicker), they then stopped doing it altogether. Solution-focused practitioners will leave out anything that does not work.
5 comments, click here to add your comment:
Leaving out anything that does not work is sound practice.
Many skeptics will leave out things that do work or could work, based on the fact that they cannot explain it.
If it works, it works. Even when you don't have an explanation ready.
So I would advise to use skepticism, if and when it works. If it does not work, leave it out!
Hi Erik, Thank you for your intruiging comment. I think skeptics leave out explanations that can't be substantiated. If they come across a phenomenon they can't explain they don't necessarily reject that phenomenon. Rather they keep from claiming they can explain it. In other words, I think, skeptics don't deny that there are things we cannot readily explain.
Your last sentence sounds clever and intruiging, and it rings true. Any system of thought surely has its limitations. So why should skepticism be an exception? The question is, when would skepticism not work and how would you know?
It looks like it all depends on how you define skepticism. Wikipedia states several, different, definitions. In classical philosophy, skepticism states that "one should avoid the postulation of final truths. Turned on itself, skepticism would question that skepticism is a valid perspective at all." (Quote from Wikipedia).
I find that there are a lot of people calling themselves skeptics who do not qualify as such. Instead, they assert their own opinions as final thruths. These are, to me, the same type of people that were sure earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. It was this kind of so-called skepticism I was questioning.
True skeptics would probably say that skepticism might work, or it might not work.
Hi Erik, interesting. I like the way you put it. It reminds me of a remark Niels Bohr once made (I guess he was a real skepticist): 'Everything I say must be understood not as an affirmation but as a question'
This video Explains what skepticism is and how it works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI&feature=channel_page
In a very lively way it presents a look at some of the flawed thinking that prompts people who believe in certain non-scientific concepts to advise others who don't to be more open-minded.
It also adresses the irony of the claim that you should be skeptical about skepticism
Post a Comment