Do not be deceived: Skepticism is a system of faith like any other belief.

But before discussing its principles, one must distinguish between Skepticism - the belief - and skepticism, a practical position in our life that tells us not to believe blindly in whatever proposition or fact which is against commonsense or facts of everyday life. The late form is benign, supporting our lives. Skepticism, however, is a doctrine of thought which absolutely denies facts that are not in accordance with certain beliefs, i. e.,  those accepted by “Skeptical believers”.

The name “skeptical believer” emphasizes the often hidden “faith” aspect beyond pure doubt and questioning which is so praised by the most reluctant skeptics.

            Does Science endorse Skepticism? The answer to this question seems pretty obvious to many Skeptical believers, but it is in fact not so simple. Scientists are seen as rigorous personalities; their propositions, because supposedly based on rigorous testing, cannot be denied. As a consequence, Skeptical believers require the highest level of proofs for external claims that are not in accordance with theirs.

    In fact, Skepticism as a system of faith goes side by side with Scientificism, another belief for which anything to have the status of truth, must be rigorously proved beyond any doubt through the methods of science.

            Science does not endorse skepticism. If it had done so, it would have never reached the level we see today. However, Science does possess a kind of internal “heuristic” - a principle - which prohibits, to a certain level - scientist to modify the core principles of their science. Some scientists recognize this heuristic principle and call it skepticism, but this is a mistake. Moreover, even such negative heuristic should be abandoned eventually when an internal crisis leads to a scientific revolution. During such fulgent moments, old structures are substituted by new ones that are often in contradiction with past beliefs.

    Many Skeptical believers are so short-minded because they fail to understand the historical process of Science, they tend to think about Science as something ready, that never underwent any previous modification. They cannot accept any modification of the core principles. As scientists, certainly, they are not the ones who are going to take the first step toward a revolution in Science.

        Our proposition about Skepticism as a system of faith finds support if we observe that there are many kinds of Skeptical believers:

• ·            Skeptical scientificists: Faith is based on the believed truthfulness of Science. They believe in rigorous scientific methods, laboratory experiments, and the need of “repeatability” as they say;

• ·            Skeptical by religion: their religious system of faith prohibits them to go further.

There is always a system of faith behind any skeptical position. In fact, for everything that we do in our lives, there is always a belief involved. When you go walking, you do believe that your legs will support you and that you are not going to be struck by a car or meteorite - you know that there is surely a non-zero probability for these facts to occur, but they should be neglected to some extent, otherwise, you could never leave your home. There are two ways to understand this situation: either you´re constrained to believe that nothing will happen to you while walking around or you must be skeptical enough, despising the statistical laws of chance. In either case, there is only some belief involved.

About meteorites: the history of their believed origin is vivid example to our study. The fall of meteors is surely an interesting fact, because it cannot be produced at will. It is something that can never be tested in laboratory. Moreover, their occurrence cannot be provoked by any means. In fact, until 1805 the extraterrestrial origin of meteors was considered by scientists (and skeptical believers along with) as pure superstition, notwithstanding the large number of reports around the world.

If scientists failed to accept the testimony of a large number of witnesses for a phenomena that belongs to their direct interest, how can we expect that they will accept others (such as psychic phenomena, mediumship etc.) that surely are outside their scope?

There are here two important features of psychic phenomena that are relevant to this discussion:

·     The fact that they do not belong to the well delimited borders of current science - their nature defies any classification for the normal scientific practice;

·     The fact that they cannot be provoked at will, cannot be controlled, in short, that they should be collected in Nature as the vast majority of natural phenomena (thunderstorms, natural selection, etc.).  

Note that meteors only had the second property above. All these contributed to generate an “empty zone” of agreement and vehement denial on the part of skeptical believers, despite ample evidence for mediumship throughout history.

One point often neglected by many skeptics and psi enthusiasts alike is the true nature beyond psychic phenomena. One important feature is that these phenomena do not seem to belong to the same class of material facts. The understanding of their true nature is the key to promote the advancement of our knowledge about these facts and their wide acceptance. The lack of a solid theory (and lack of interest in one) on the mind of skeptics is the true reason beyond the current state of affairs. One needs to clear out all myths that circle these facts, to dissipate the aura of mysticism that surrounds them.

            And this can only be accomplished by Spiritism proposition - believing in the true immaterial nature of human being and the possibility of after death communication - no matter how spectacular this claim may seem. Facing skepticism, we should always pay attention to their kind and hidden reasons. Be convinced that we don´t have the right to force anyone minds to believe in whatever fact or principle, no matter how obvious or frequent it may seem. As eternal spirits we all gravitate toward the same center which is Truth. 

Further reading:

Michael D. Sofka. “Myths of skepticism”.