# Are Skeptics Sometimes TOO Skeptical?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-skeptics-sometimes-too-skeptical/764457>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [August 30, 2016, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-skeptics-sometimes-too-skeptical/764457 "2016-08-30T03:08:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\
**Post date:** [September 11, 2016, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-skeptics-sometimes-too-skeptical/764457/141 "2016-09-11T22:05:01Z")

</div>

My take on all this:

My definition of “Skeptic” is someone who is cautious and always logical about accepting unsupported data as being fact. Not just a naysayer.

```
By my definition, no, there's no such thing as being too skeptical. There's no such thing as being too dedicated to making fact and logic based decisions. The only minor addendum I would point out, is that I consider it to be an act of irrationality to ignore that there are situations where we must act before we can gain the desired amount of factual information needed to make ideal decisions.

```

However, I have seen that the label of skeptic, has become generally seen to be a positive trait, as opposed to the same person accepting the label of “stubborn,” or “prejudiced,” or “close-minded.” Hence, lots of prejudiced, self-blinded, irrationally certain people, CALL themselves “skeptics,” and provide lots of examples of the kind of “skeptic” that the opening poster seems to be concerned about.

So no, there’s no such thing as being too much of an ACTUAL skeptic, but there is certainly such a thing as allowing people who don’t qualify as skeptics, to hide their prejudices and other thinking defects behind that label.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GunnarFranz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/da6949/32.png) [@GunnarFranz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GunnarFranz)\
**Post date:** [September 12, 2016, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-skeptics-sometimes-too-skeptical/764457/142 "2016-09-12T11:22:52Z")

</div>

> [@Sam\_Lowry](#):
>
> Could you clarify what you mean? If you knew someone who had serious chronic pain, and acupuncture was what helped them the most, would you try to convince them that it was bad? Even if they knew that it was likely from the placebo effect?

If they know it’s because of the placebo effect they are admitting that it is not _actually_ doing anything and thus are not being inauthentic. To the ethical question posed, I know plenty of people that lie to themselves as to feel better and I call them on it about 85% of the time.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\
**Post date:** [September 12, 2016, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-skeptics-sometimes-too-skeptical/764457/143 "2016-09-12T11:47:53Z")

</div>

> [@igor\_frankensteen](#):
>
> However, I have seen that the label of skeptic, has become generally seen to be a positive trait, as opposed to the same person accepting the label of “stubborn,” or “prejudiced,” or “close-minded.” Hence, lots of prejudiced, self-blinded, irrationally certain people, CALL themselves “skeptics,” and provide lots of examples of the kind of “skeptic” that the opening poster seems to be concerned about.

Riight, so only people who are skeptic about the same things you are skeptic about, are real skeptics.

I remain skeptical about your qualifier.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-skeptics-sometimes-too-skeptical/764457.md?page=7)