Apr 1, 2024 5 min read

By Gary Stout

“Skepticism is the mark of the educated mind.”-John Dewey

I have a well-read, retired friend who lives on the opposite end of the political and cultural spectrum. He is a conservative, Christian Republican. We have talked once a week for 15 years, and no topic is off limits. In the middle of a discussion, his go-to observation is often, “No one really knows anything.”

My friend is a classic skeptic. He has taught me to approach life with the same willingness to doubt what feels like a safe conclusion. I have learned it is OK to have an opinion, but first be skeptical. I now take the time to make sure my point of view can withstand a stress test based on reasonable facts.

On the issues that are tearing apart the fabric of America, there are many points of view and few definitive answers. Unfortunately, in today’s partisan environment, any two scholars, theologians, or politicians can argue on opposite sides of important subjects with dogmatic certainty.

In fact, the critical questions facing us often come with few absolute answers. Pro-choice or pro-life? Close the border or expand legal immigration? Increase or cut taxes? Individual liberty or more equality? Diplomacy or war? A larger military or a larger welfare state? Should the Steelers pick a quarterback or an offensive lineman?

To add to the problem, modern life offers up numerous opportunities to be fooled by unscrupulous people. Causes backed by unfounded conspiracies are quick to provide false answers to puzzling events. Bald-faced lies and bizarre claims bombard us every day.

Our tribal culture demands that rigid, unconditional positions be taken with no questions asked. There is little room for skepticism or doubt when analyzing important social issues or even nonsensical conspiracy theories. Rational discussion and a national consensus to solve a problem have become nearly impossible.

Skepticism and doubt are not identical concepts. Skepticism implies an open mind. It requires proof and evidence before accepting something as true. It is a logical, analytical exercise. On the other hand, doubt is a more intuitive, emotional hesitancy to accept a proposition as factually correct. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, doubt implies “a feeling of not being certain about something, especially about how good or true it is.”

The ancient school of thinkers known as the Skeptics took the concept to the extreme. These philosophers called into question the very possibility of knowledge. For Skeptics, nothing was knowable with certainty. Plato gave them credence when he acknowledged in his work “The Theaetetus,” “What is true for one person might be false for another, with no way of judging between them.”

Other philosophers pushed back against the Greek Skeptics. Aristotle argued that suspension of belief made it impossible to act. Those that followed came to understand that failing to take a position out of an abundance of caution does not provide for a meaningful life.

Modern writing on skepticism rarely denies the existence of knowledge. Instead, the focus is on how to survive in a world overflowing with misinformation, bias, deception, flawed conclusions, and a blatant disregard for the truth. In the helpful book “The Skeptics Guide to the Universe,” the neurologist Steven Novella and his co-authors discuss the mental weaknesses and human proclivities that lead people down rabbit holes to fantasy. From the unreliable nature of memory and eyewitness testimony, confirmation bias, and the powerful enticement of coincidence and anecdotes to logical fallacies, the list is long and convincing. The authors conclude that critical thinking is the most important skill we can develop as we enter the new and dangerous information age that now includes artificial intelligence.

One of my favorite theater productions, “Doubt: A Parable,” by the playwright John Patrick Shanley, premiered on Broadway in 2004. The setting is a parochial school in the Bronx in 1964. The play won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for drama and the Tony Award for best play. In 2008, “Doubt” was adapted as a feature film. It starred Meryl Streep as the school’s principal, Sister Aloysius, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Father Flynn, a well-liked progressive priest. The film was nominated for several Academy Awards. This year the play has returned to Broadway.

“Doubt” has staying power because it is able to make audiences think about and challenge their preconceived opinions. Is the popular priest guilty of sexual misconduct based on circumstantial evidence? Alternatively, is the conservative school principal forming conclusions not supported by the facts? At the end, the principal forces the priest to leave the school, but she is filled with doubt. Moreover, there is no solid proof of guilt or innocence, and the audience is left with its own doubts.

This important production became a parable for both the crisis of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq based on faulty intelligence gathering. The powerful message is that facts matter. Leaping to conclusions usually ends in disaster.

When my friend pauses in the middle of a discussion to remind me that “no one really knows anything,” I often think of this great play. At the time it was first performed 20 years ago, most Americans did not feel entitled to superficial tribal truths, unsupported by objective reality. Now more than ever, we need many good questions and a great deal of skepticism to get to some reliable answers.

Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.