The importance of being a sceptic

We have heard and read about a Swami in India who is supposed to have performed miracles on more than one occasion. He had created gold chains, rings and wristwatches for many unsuspecting devotees. Volumes have been written about his miracles by medical men and scientists. He is also supposed to have psychic and healing powers.

Once a small group of journalists who were impressed by the stories written about him visited the Swami’s ashram and stayed there for a week to witness his miracles. To their dismay, the Swami was in a wheelchair apparently paralysed waist downwards. The journalists did not see any miracles and their request to interview the Swami was turned down.

The world is full of such god-men and magicians. Most people believe what others tell them. When you disagree with them or ask for evidence, they get annoyed. Although most of us are gullible enough to believe anything and everything without evidence, there are a few men and women who are sceptical about claims made by god-men and psycho-kinetics who move objects using their mind power. Most philosophers and rationalists belong to this category.

Credible evidence

If you are a sceptic, you will demand clear, observable and credible evidence before accepting any knowledge claim as true. The word “scepticism” from the Greek “skeptesthai” (to consider or examine) refers to both a school of philosophy and a general attitude.

In ancient Greece, a sceptic was a special kind of doubter who withheld judgment for want of evidence. Sextus Empiricus even devised a “sceptical grammar.” There are variations of scepticism from total to temporary doubt for the purpose of analysis. The renowned philosopher Rene Descartes called it “methodic doubt.”

We need not, however, demand evidence for all the claims people make. If the issue is important, we have a right to ask for evidence. Sometimes, we may be able to verify everything by ourselves. We may have to depend on expert opinions. Who are the experts is another matter to consider. When it comes to health foods, we invariably buy anything on the recommendation of our neighbours. On the other hand, even doctors and politicians make claims. All these issues involve knowledge claims. In philosophy we call them epistemological issues. Thanks to Rene Descartes, epistemology has become a branch of Western philosophy.

Empiricism

Epistemology gave rise to rationalism and empiricism. According to rationalism, reason is the only means of gaining knowledge and logic is the method of asking for reasons. Empiricism is the belief that all knowledge is ultimately derived from the senses and that all ideas can be traced to sense data. Empiricists believe that reason is unable to provide knowledge of reality. Such knowledge can only be derived from experience.

The earliest of the three British empiricists was John Locke (1632-1704) who wrote, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding which explained what empiricism is. According to Locke, all ideas originate in sensation and reflection. Descartes, on the other hand, believed in a special class of ideas known as a priori or innate ideas. They are truths derived from observation or experience. For instance, every event has a cause or all triangles contain 1800. Locke rejected the Cartesian style speculation as “dangerous” and “useless.” While rationalists compared the mind to a pantry well stocked with “innate ideas,” Locke said the mind is an empty pantry waiting to be stocked by experience.

Modern philosophy

John Locke, considered to be the greatest British philosopher, has left his signature on modern philosophy. His intent was to lay the foundation of human knowledge on a sound, scientific footing. He read Descartes’s Meditations with absorbing interest but rejected the rationalist philosophy contained therein.

Does a falling tree make a sound when there is no one to hear it? Locke said the falling tree creates vibrations in the air, but there is no “sound,” since sound is not a “real” or primary quality. This view leads to the metaphysical conclusion that without a perceiving mind, there is no such thing in the world as colour or sound. But he said there are such things as shape, extension and solidity, independently of whether anyone perceives them or not.

On the role of philosopher Locke said, “A philosopher should be an under-labourer, clearing the ground, removing rubbish. What is the rubbish the philosopher removes? Rationalistic rubbish, of course, such rubbish as Plato and St. Thomas Aquinas and Descartes wrote. But what is the under-labourer clearing the ground for, since nothing is to be built and there are no master builders? The empiricist has no answer to this question except that it is desirable to recognise rubbish and to clear it out.”