Is there a difference between science and skepticism?

[Dr B]

I know this is similar to other questions I have asked but - Is there a difference between science and skepticism? What I mean is, as a process of investigation and evaluation of the object of study - is there a clear difference and if so - what is it?

What counts as a scientific analysis? What counts as a skeptical analysis? When does a skeptical analysis cease to be a scientific one? :D

What differs between a scientific analysis and a skeptical one? Are the terms entirely interchangeable?

Obviously I accept that skeptics don't need to be scientists, but a skeptic is more than capable of providing a cogent analysis of an area of study - which can often - at least to me - look entirely sound. I would describe that as scientific (I think....).

What do you guys n girls think? Is there a useful distinction to be made here or not? ???

We have discussed aspects of this elsewhere - but I am still abit confused over this. :-\

[Admin]

I do make a distinction between science and skepticism although others don’t. Of course terms need to be defined and ‘science’ in particular can have a very broad meaning.

I see science as far bigger and far more powerful than skepticism. It’s about observation, measuring, hypothesising, testing etc. and is the best method we have for acquiring meaningful knowledge. Skepticism, on the other hand, is all about scrutinising claims for validity. That’s why it is vitally important to science – skepticism is the filter through which claims have to pass.

Having said that, I think that skepticism is far more useful as a tool for everyday living as it can be applied without the need for a person to be a scientist. We’re all bombarded with all sorts of bogus claims in life and we can use the method of skepticism to (hopefully) weed out the bogus and leave the good.

Science has nothing to say about whether joining a Multi Level Marketing scheme is a good move for example, but applying skepticism to the claims of MLM will show up how bogus they really are.

I think that skepticism can be used as a highly beneficial tool by anyone who adopts the method as a way of examining things, without the need for a science background.

[QueigBladecaster]

A scientific analysis relys on facts that can be observed, tested and more importantly reproduced by other scientists before they can be logged in the annuls of what we percieve (currently) to be truth.

A scientist must take a hypothisis (usually a narrow one) and test it to the N'th degree. This should leave no room for personal opinion, personal experience or evidence from unrelated sources.

A scientist has to work within a tight framework of established procedures and protocols for everything they do. This is what makes them sometimes vunerable to mis-information and fraud be it malignant or benign (lookup the Alpha Project for evidence of this).

The difference with a skeptical analysis is that the skeptic is less restricted in his/her thought processes to reach a conclusion. You do not need proof positive to be skeptical about something.

A skeptic can use what knowledge they do have to be able to form the relevant questions to gain the knowledge they do not have. Personal experience and evidence of things not specifically related to the topic at hand can all be considered to form the theory.

for example, imagine a world where koala bears have never been sent to zoos and only existed in their native habitat in Austraila.

suppose someone were to claim that Koala bears did not infact exist and were a conspiracy dreamt up by the australian tourist board to attract punters.

Someone who is skeptical of this statement, who had never visited Australia, could justifiy the skeptisim without ever having seen a koala in real life.

They know that bears of other varities exist. The skeptic can find no rational explanation as to why the Australian tourist board would do such a thing, and can find no evidence of fraud on their part in the past. They can find eye witness accounts from a great many people who have seen these koala bears in the wild, and the number of these testimonies far outweigh the claim that the bears are a figment of the imagination. So the skeptic is happy to see the claim as false even without the scientific evidence.

To challenge this theory scientifically a scientist would have to visit Australia capture one of these creatures study it to prove it was indeed a real animal and not some other previously known creature with a good make-up job. then other scientists would have to do the same to test and evaluate this research. Only then can the claim be seen to be scientifically proved to be false.

A skeptical analysis does not need to be scientific at all. A skeptic in many cases is asking for proof not providing it as science trys to do. I think the 2 occupy very different areas but it is certainly true the science should always be used as a tool for the skeptic, just as skeptisim should always be one of the many tools employed by the scientist.

[Mongrel]

To challenge this theory scientifically a scientist would have to visit Australia capture one of these creatures study it to prove it was indeed a real animal and not some other previously known creature with a good make-up job. then other scientists would have to do the same to test and evaluate this research. Only then can the claim be seen to be scientifically proved to be false.

Actually I beg to differ (But in a friendly way - welcome Queig :)), excuse the simplified slightly hyperbolic example.

A scientist wouldn't have to visit Oz to 'prove' that Koalas existed, or Duck Billed Platypus for that matter they're far more bizzare, a few good photos would put them into "interesting development" phase and then a local brings in fur samples, faecal matter they get analysed and it doesn't match anything on record - uproar, in a good way.

A local then sends a carcass that he ran over to the local museum, they study it and find it's not a Chimera! Result :) Funding or donation to recognised Uni, that's known for Zoology research, follows and the local Biologists have a field day, papers are published in Nature and all around the globe Biologists, zoologists and geneticists are clamouring for a piece of the action. Scientists whole heartedly confirm the existence of the Koala, they then send out field teams to track and watch to find out more of it's habits and environments, possibly even capturing one - 80% of the 'proof' is done in the lab.

[Cuddles]

Science is a profession, skepticism is a way of life.

The ideas behind them both are similar, but applied in very different ways, and to different degrees. Science is concerned with finding out how everything works. It doesn't matter what the answers are, all that matters is that we get the right ones, or at least as close as we can get. Whether the answers have any effect on our lives or not is irrelevant, although of course most research is carried out in the hope we'll get something out of it. Skepticism on the other hand, is all about what the answers are and how they effect us.

To take the Koala example. As a skeptic, the existence of Koalas makes no difference to me. Having never heard of them, if someone tells me that in Australia there lives a bear-shaped thing that lives in trees I have no reason to doubt this. I know bear-shaped things sometimes live in trees and I'm fairly sure Australia exists. I won't immediately accept it as the truth, but given a few more witnesses and maybe some good photos I will be fairly confident that I can accept they exist. If someone claimed they live in Britain then I would be much more doubtful. I live here and have never seen or heard of them. If I accept they exist then there is actually an effect on me, since I would have to look at ways of keeping them out of my trees and so on, and so I would need much stronger evidence that they really do exist here.

However, a scientist must always be much more sure. If I am a biologist I cannot simply accept the existence of a new species just on the say so of a couple of people and a photo. While it would make no difference to me personally, what is important is the knowledge. To find out if they really do exist I would need actual samples and preferably one or more whole specimens before I would accept it as scientific fact that they exist and be willing to report it in a journal. In addition, science doesn't stop there. While a skeptic can happily accept that Koalas exist and go on with their lives, science needs to know more. OK, we know they exist, but what are they like? how do they live? how many are there? and so on.

In the end, science is a job and has responsibilities. You must be sure that what you are reporting is supported and the whole point is to find out as much as possible. Skepticism is just a way of ensuring you make sensible descisions. It doesn't matter if you aren't right and it doesn't matter if you don't find out anything more later, all that matters is that you use the evidence to come to the logical conclusion. As for Koalas, a skeptic would be happy looking up some reliable information with good sources and accepting that they exist. It is science that put that information there in the first place.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

I know this is similar to other questions I have asked but - Is there a difference between science and skepticism? What I mean is, as a process of investigation and evaluation of the object of study - is there a clear difference and if so - what is it?

What counts as a scientific analysis? What counts as a skeptical analysis? When does a skeptical analysis cease to be a scientific one? :D

What differs between a scientific analysis and a skeptical one? Are the terms entirely interchangeable?

Obviously I accept that skeptics don't need to be scientists, but a skeptic is more than capable of providing a cogent analysis of an area of study - which can often - at least to me - look entirely sound. I would describe that as scientific (I think....).

What do you guys n girls think? Is there a useful distinction to be made here or not? ???

We have discussed aspects of this elsewhere - but I am still abit confused over this. :-\

Curiously why would you be confused! Everyone is skeptical of something, and people in science are no different.
And why wouldn't there be a difference!

[Jocky]

Curiously why would you be confused! Everyone is skeptical of something, and people in science are no different.
And why wouldn't there be a difference!

Hello and welcome to UKS, ghosthunterdebunker :)

I don't think Dr B meant "skepticism" in the general sence of being doubtful about something: he was referring to the method of enquiry known as scientific skepticism, as defined in this article.

Does this help you to make more sense of the OP?