That war is over isn’t it? I think he lost.
See http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5042128&postcount=3
First, and to reiterate, I think you’re just a bit off-base on the “should-be-capitalized” thing. References to the school should be capitalized, but not references to the philosophy. We don’t write “Existentialism” or “Moral Relativism” unless we’re starting a sentence. We do write “Christianity” and “Keynesian” only because they’re derived from proper names. The word “skepticism” is not derived from a proper name, and therefore should not be capitalized unless, for example, referencing the Academic Skeptics, which is a school of thought.
Second, I never claimed I had to ask “over and over”. My complaint — again — is that there is already a perfectly good word for incredulous. Why not use it? Any comments on that?
Then I would ask — again — what would they say if they really mean skepticism, rather than mere doubt? I know you say to capitalize it but do you honestly claim that a person should write, “You know, I have to say that I am Skeptical about that.”? If so, I am skeptical of your claim. 
From your link:
Liberalism champions the rights of individuals to be free from the tyanny of oppressive government. It recognizes the sacred right of every individual to give or withold their consent, and to pursue their own happiness in their own way so long as they do not infringe on the equal rights of others.
From a protected Wikipedia page:
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected
Maybe people are using “lost” to mean something else now as well. 
“Skeptic” sounds neater.
I think you hit the nail on the head (and are mirroring what one user already said). There are people who want to be a skeptic because it sounds cool, or because being a skeptic is perceived as cool. Hey! I’m a skeptic, what with me bein’ all scientific an’ evah thang! 
And… there are people who really are skeptical. It becomes clear, after some bother, that no amount of evidence would ever convince them that your argument even has merit, let alone that it’s correct. Those people aren’t even doubters. They are, in fact, perfectly convinced.
I agree with thee.
Hah!
I’m with Liberal on this. I actually have noticed in the past that folks here have used the word “skeptic/ism/al” in a way that didn’t quite jive with my understanding of the word. I got what they meant, but I had to redefine what I understood “skeptic” to mean in order for it to be the right word to use in context.
“Skeptical” is not completely interchangable with “doubting,” or, “one who doesn’t believe the opposition.”
Actually, the word is “jibe” not “jive”.
Seems to me that “incredulous” has overtones of “What the hell! Are you shitting me?” – in smiley terms, :eek: – while “skeptical” has more of an air of “No, really? Are you sure about that?” – :dubious:
Denotationally they may be identically defined, but connotationally they do differ, in my experience.
Yes, that’s it exactly! I’ve been trying to figure out how to describe the difference I perceive between the two words, but you’ve nailed it.
Correct.
Seeing “skeptical” as meaning a doubting or questioning mindset is perfectly valid and the commonly accepted definition of the word. :dubious: :dubious: :dubious:
When the credulous get challenged by skeptics, acceptable responses include 1) ignoring them, 2) winning them over by presenting convincing evidence (it is permissible to give up if said evidence is not addressed) or 3) reminding them that in matters of religion you do not feel compelled to convince doubters.
Attempting to mock people by conjuring up an obscure meaning of “skeptic” and then castigating skeptics for not living up to it, is truly lame*.
*i.e. embarassingly foolish, not in the sense of hobbled by injury.
Depends upon whether he believes that a significant difference can ever be found, even if one exists.
And this illustrates, for me, why formal philosopy never gets anywhere. No definition of terms that suits everyone is possible. That makes me a skeptic as to definitions, I guess.
Okay, fair enough. If it’s my ignorance that needs fighting, then I can adapt to how the term is used here. Certainly, if someone says, “I’m skeptical, but show me,” then I can translate that into my head as “I’m doubtful, but I can be convinced.” But at least the independent clause would be helpful.
In any case (and you’re the third or fourth person that I’ve asked this of) what term do we use for the person who will not be convinced no matter how much evidence or argument you produce because he believes that either your assertion cannot possibly be true under any circumstance or else the truth of your assertion is impossible to ascertain?
Instead of saying, “I’m skeptical”, what word should he use?
How about “dickhead?”
How about intransigent.
“Pigheaded” works for me. Or you could toss in an adverb and go for “willfully blind”.
Yeah, I get that.
But there can be good reason to discount an assertion right out of the box. It can be something ridiculous, like “Barbara Streisand is the Chief Justice of the United States.” No amount of argument would convince me of that, given my own life experience — what I’ve seen and read (including the swearing in of John G. Roberts Jr.). But it can also be something sublime, like “A negative assertion cannot be proved true.” There is no argument or evidence that will make that statement even plausible because it is self-contradictory. But you’d be amazed how much it is thrown about.
I do agree that words like “pigheaded” apply to intransigent or incorrigible people, but again, that’s not what skepticism (in the sense I use the term) really is. So, if you don’t mind hanging in there just a bit longer, let me give a better example:
Smith: “I can prove empirically that one plus one equals two.”
Jones: “I’m sorry, but I’m ________ about that because your claim is analytical, not empirical.”
What goes in the blank for Jones? Surely not “pigheaded”. And “doubtful” concedes that Smith could prove his unprovable point if only he could convince Jones. Why isn’t the term “skeptical” perfectly useful for Jones, while not meaning either “pigheaded” or merely “doubtful”.
Then why do we capitalize Jewish, Hindu, or Voodoo?
At any rate, you don’t have to believe me: I got this from the dictionary:
Someone that follows this school ought to be capitalized. Adjectival forms of capitalized nouns are capitalized in almost all cases. I see no reason to make this an exception, especially since, as you noted, refusing to capitalize it leads to confusing the Pyrrhonian with the quotidian* doubting Thomas.
You claimed that “the discussion begins to unravel while you attempt to determine what the illiterate crank is trying to say. And as often as not, your questioning is taken by him or her to be dodging.” I’m not sure how this could happen “as often as not” if you didn’t attempt to determine this over and over; my apologies if my paraphrase of your “as often as not” was inaccurate.
As others have noted, incredulous does have a different connotation. “Incredulous” emphasizes the disbelief; “skeptical” emphasizes that the subject has not yet been convinced. If I say I am incredulous, I am less likely to be convinced than if I say I am skeptical. An incredulous person may, if pressed, admit that they believe (how many people who say, “that’s incredible!” doubt that “that” is actuall true?). A skeptical person clearly does not believe currently. They may, however, believe, given ample evidence.
The best indicator that a word has a distinct meaning, in general, is that the word exists. Humans tend not multiply words beyond necessity, despite all the jokes about corporatespeak and other jargon. When folks introduce a new word or a new meaning to the language, it’s because they find that new word or meaning useful.
When I was a kid, I used to go to the beach and karate-chop waves, screaming and yelling at them to go back where they came from. Crusades against words always remind me of my childhood pugnacity: you can’t karate-chop a word out of the language any more than you can karate-chop the ocean off the shore.
Daniel
But “skeptical” works there if you read Jones to be saying: “You have failed to convince me.” It’s that “because” clause that to me undercuts your argument here. If Jones replied only “I’m sorry, but I’m unable to believe/accept/buy that,” and stopped there, then that would be intransigent refusal to alter an opinion based on grounds to the contrary being offered. As soon as Jones sticks in the “because” clause, then (theoretically at least) Jones is admitting that there may in fact be some line of reasoning, some item of evidence, that will change his/her mind.
This thing called language is slippery stuff, hard to get a hold on, innit?