So, the crux of the issue is that much of the world we live in (as well as ourselves) cannot really be known for certain. We may believe we know a thing ... until we consider that what we believe we know is really only as good as the device we are detecting or evaluating with. Or, interpreting with.

For example, we may be feel justified in believing that a thing weighs exactly 2 kilograms - until we find out that our scale was not calibrated accurately, or, that we had read the device improperly.

We may believe that there is nothing outside in the dark because we cannot see or hear it - until a stroke of lightning illuminates what had been in hiding before.

We may believe all sorts of things because they are the things we would prefer to believe, or hope that should be true, when in fact many of those things may not be so.

If one has lived and experienced life for any length of time, one can draw on one's own memory as examples of mistakes made in believing a thing to be so, only to find later that the truth was different.

The skeptic does not disbelieve. Rather, he or she understands that misinterpretations occur all the time, and so asks for additional evidence backing up a particular conclusion. He or she understands that misunderstandings happen as a hazard of speaking generally, and so may ask the same question in a few different ways.

A skeptic is not devoted to winning arguments in order to "prove themselves right" or to "prove their opponent wrong." Rather, the skeptic is interested laying down a best guess, testing (or discussing) it further, and examining whether the results of those tests (or discussions) favor or disfavor the best guess (e.g. the hypothesis.)

There is no loss for the skeptic to have his or her best guess proven incorrect. Rather, the positive result is that additional knowledge has been gained. Truth is a little more clear.

The reality is that in practical terms, ego does assert itself here and there even for the practicing skeptic. We tend to look for evidence that supports our desired outcome, and ignore or diminish in some way evidence that refutes it. However, these are human limitations, and it is the responsibility of the skeptic to overcome these.

The thrill comes in understanding The Truth of Things a little better, not in confirming our own prior suspicions about the matter.

It is most certainly true that the existence of Skepticism as a behavior is a function of behavioral filters that we are graced with by virtue of our biology, our genes. (Skeptics should be bristling at the implied certainty of this last statement!) This resource hypothesizes that the degree to which one can be successfully skeptical is a matter of both naturally endowed biology (genetics) as well as training for those who have the biology for it. Thus, it will be elaborated on as a behavioral Personality Ensemble (filter) at a later date, and this section will then be updated.

Other resources weigh in:

• Wikipedia on Scientific skepticism
• Wikipedia on Skepticism
• Wikipedia on The Scientific Method

---