Difference between revisions of "Asymmetric skepticism"
(Created page with "<hide> page type::article thing type::phenomenon category:isms </hide> ==About== Asymmetric skepticism is a distortion of the idea of skepticism in which s...") |
(confirmation bias) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[thing type::phenomenon]] | [[thing type::phenomenon]] | ||
[[category:isms]] | [[category:isms]] | ||
| + | [[category:terms of convenience]] | ||
</hide> | </hide> | ||
==About== | ==About== | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
This inconsistency allows one to claim the mantle of a "skeptic" or [[rational]] thinker while in fact basing one's conclusions entirely on unexamined preferences or prejudices. | This inconsistency allows one to claim the mantle of a "skeptic" or [[rational]] thinker while in fact basing one's conclusions entirely on unexamined preferences or prejudices. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It's sort of the mirror image of [[confirmation bias]]: instead of giving more thought to evidence which supports one's preferred conclusions, one gives more thought to evidence which counters conclusions that one dislikes. | ||
===Example=== | ===Example=== | ||
People who claim to be "skeptical" about [[global warming]] (GW), for example, are engaging in asymmetric skepticism – tending to highlight minor issues and uncertainties in GW arguments while ignoring or dismissing the vast amount of evidence supporting those arguments. | People who claim to be "skeptical" about [[global warming]] (GW), for example, are engaging in asymmetric skepticism – tending to highlight minor issues and uncertainties in GW arguments while ignoring or dismissing the vast amount of evidence supporting those arguments. | ||
Latest revision as of 19:13, 22 January 2016
About
Asymmetric skepticism is a distortion of the idea of skepticism in which skeptical thinking is applied primarily to only one side of an argument – that is, a disliked position is viewed "skeptically" while a favored position is not held to the same standards.
This inconsistency allows one to claim the mantle of a "skeptic" or rational thinker while in fact basing one's conclusions entirely on unexamined preferences or prejudices.
It's sort of the mirror image of confirmation bias: instead of giving more thought to evidence which supports one's preferred conclusions, one gives more thought to evidence which counters conclusions that one dislikes.
Example
People who claim to be "skeptical" about global warming (GW), for example, are engaging in asymmetric skepticism – tending to highlight minor issues and uncertainties in GW arguments while ignoring or dismissing the vast amount of evidence supporting those arguments.