What is the opposite of a skeptical argument and skeptics in general?

[alterego]

I have considered that

a) There is no opposite or antonym
b) It is a "proponent."
c) It is an "exponent."
d) It is an "advocate."
e) It is B, C, and D situationally?

Generally speaking, we relate to skeptics as folks who are immediately probing for holes which lead to uncertainity in a person, thing, thought, or idea. But for the sake of my needs, let us say that there is idea A, and person 1 is immediately a skeptic concerning the idea, whereas person 2 is immediately in favor of the idea.

I don't think that immediately probing for holes relates to pessimism, as it simply describes a skeptic, who can be rather optimistic in general. But what about a person who immediately accepts an idea until a hole is shown? Are they simply optimistic, gullible, and trusting? None of these seem like equal opposites to skepticism.

[John Corrado]

Credulous

"ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence"

[alterego]

Originally Posted by John Corrado

Credulous

"ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence"

Wouldn't the opposite of a skeptic accept the idea until uncertain evidence was shown?

[aahala]

I would say gullible comes pretty close.

A skeptic questions everything before accepting, the truly gullible will accept anything without questioning.

[RealityChuck]

"People who forward e-mails"

[aahala]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

"People who forward e-mails"

LOL - Especially those who respond to the forwarded one about the Nigerian bank account.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Wouldn't the opposite of a skeptic be a believer?

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by alterego

Generally speaking, we relate to skeptics as folks who are immediately probing for holes which lead to uncertainity in a person, thing, thought, or idea.

A fair definition.

I'd define a skeptic is a person who doubts, until proof is given.

The opposite of a skeptic is a dogmatist. A dogmatist is someone with fixed ideas that refuses to change their mind come what may.

There are two types of dogma, which are equally bad: the first is believers, the second is debunkers or pseudo-skeptics.


A believer clings to his belief come what may. No amount of evidence will convince him otherwise. He will twist facts to suit his own convictions.

A pseudo-skeptic sets out to disprove the theory. He just knows that the theory is wrong. No amount of evidence will convince him otherwise. He will twist facts to suit his own convictions. A true skeptic is willing to look at evidence, and change his mind if warrented. A pseudo-skeptic is not. He is only interested in attacking the theory any damn way possible, and has no interest in seeing anything that might make him change his mind.

[alterego]

Excellent answer Peter thank you. Could you provide further clarification?

A skeptic is rather detached and pointing out "arguments against (it seems that by definition a skeptical argument will always be an argument against)." What of a person who is similarly detached and pointing out "arguments for," and what of their argument? If a person is as equally detached from a point as the skeptic is, it doesn't seem we could call them a dogmatist, especially if they do not subscribe to the dogma, and are simply analyzing it.

From the sound of it "dogma" implies belief. But simple and pragmatic non-belief does not bring with it the same vested interest as belief does. So let us consider that neither parties are bringing belief to the table.

Or maybe i'm way out in left field now

[CurtC]

Just don't ask Peter Morris what he thinks of James Randi (please, really, don't).

In the past, when people have asked what my definition of "skeptic" is, I say "the opposite of gullible." I think this pretty much answers your question from my point of view.

[Diceman]

Depending on the context, I'd say that "believer," "proponent," or "advocate" would be the opposite of a skeptic.

BTW, what Peter calls "pseudo-skeptics" are what I call "professional skeptics" or "closed-minded skeptics." They believe in the non-reality of the phenomenon under discussion, and any evidence will be looked at in this light. An open-minded skeptic doesn't believe in the phenomenon under discussion, but is willing to consider the possibility that it might be real. In my experience, only a small minority of people who self-identify themselves as skeptics are open-minded.

Also, I'd say that "gullible" is the opposite of "cynical." A gullible person is too trusting of others, and a cynical person isn't trusting enough. Neither word really has any place in a logical debate, except when said debate has degenerated into an intellectual pissing contest.

[jjimm]

A skeptical person is a skeptic.

Thus a gullible person is clearly a gullib.


(You can thank me later, with financial contributions.)

[Cisco]

The philosophical opposite is a fideist.

I'm not sure if there's a one-word term for the everyday opposite.

[SmackFu]

I think "accepting" is a good adjective. Especially since you used it in the OP.

[Peregrine]

I don't think we have a precise name for your person 2, but we do have a name for the fallacy that person is committing. It is the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof.

A skeptic doesn't necessarily argue against a proposed idea; what makes a skeptic a skeptic is the insistence that the Burden of Proof must not be shifted away from the person making a claim, and a disinclination to accept fallacious arguments in support of a claim. The opposite of a skeptic would be someone who is inclined to shift the burden of proof (as in your example), or to accept other fallacies.

Actually, your truly detached person looking for "arguments for" can be just as much a skeptic as one who is looking for "arguments against". And I still don't know any single word to describe such a person, sorry.

[alterego]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Actually, your truly detached person looking for "arguments for" can be just as much a skeptic as one who is looking for "arguments against". And I still don't know any single word to describe such a person, sorry.

Yes, this is what I am trying to pin. When I said "immediately accepts," what was meant was, the first thing that person does is not look for reasons to disbelieve, but rather looks for reasons to believe.

Perhaps there is simply a connotation of what has been described as a pseudo-skeptic attached to the word skeptic. As you said, a skeptic could do either one of these things. For example, there could be skeptic 3, who hears of idea A and is noncommittal concerning it, and his first course of action is to find reasons that lend towards incredibility. At the same time there could be skeptic 4, who hears of the idea and is also noncommittal concerning it, and his first course of action is to find reasons that lend towards credibility. If after their deductions they finds the idea to have merit, do they become, at that point, a believer?

So, is the opposite of a skeptic a believer? Or is belieif simply an heirarchal step in the chain of reasoning of one who was a skeptic concerning the point of issue?

Let me frank regarding why I am concerned with this issue. I have written the Wikipedia article on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (found here), which is a very difficult subject to write a neutral point of view article on. On controversial subjects such as this, the course of action is typically to write the article neutrally, and then write a "Skeptical view" section. But is is truly neutral point of view to only present a skeptical point of view? For the sake of neutrality, should there not also be a "* view" that presents the side of the case lending merit to the thing? It seems it should be a requirement, otherwise the article is quite biased towards the skeptics. It gives the entire encyclopedia an air of negativity concerning controversial topics.

This is why I am interested in the antonym of skeptic! If there is no satisfactory alternative, then perhaps these sections should be labeled "arguments in favor of" and "arguments against." The encyclopedias entire foundation rests on it's neutrality.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by alterego

If after their deductions they finds the idea to have merit, do they become, at that point, a believer?

I should say rather that they become a supporter.

Perhaps the section you call "Skeptical view" could better be called "Objections". The discussion in that section is only the "arguments against" part of a complete investigation, and while that may be something that a skeptic would present, it is not necessarily true that a skeptic would present only that part, nor is it true that only a skeptic would present it (a "believer against" would also present it).

As it now stands, the main part of the article presents the ideas behind the test (the supporter's view), then objections to those ideas (the opposite view). That's already pretty balanced, to my way of thinking. If there are actual arguments for the supporter's view, then yes, they should be in there too. If the supporters haven't provided any arguments, then just the exposition of what their view is would be all you have to include for their side. But instead of having a skeptical part and an "opposite of skeptical" part, I think you would do well to have a supporting arguments part and an objections part (after the main exposition describing the test and its assumptions). It may be that aren't actually any supporting arguments, and if that's the case you could just say so in the objections part.

If you achieve the neutrality you're after, then the article as a whole becomes suitable for a skeptical reader (as opposed to the opposite of a skeptical reader, a believer one way or the other). That, I think, is the right place for the whole issue of skeptical versus non-skeptical to come into the picture.