On skepticism

I believe that there is a certain virtue in skepticism. And as I mature in life, I begin to see that many propositions or assumptions that I hold can be questioned. Even those that I might have treated as inexorably fundamental truths are subject to different opinions or viewpoints. The study of law has also encourage this attitude of skepticism towards many things. The law student asks himself the question, should the law be the way as it is. Likewise, students of other disciplines probably also profess skepticism about the prevailing arts of their disciplines. I am not so sure about the student of science and math, but I think there are areas in their studies where so-called fundamental laws and axioms can be questioned. For example, in regards to the scientific law of gravity, different paradigms and calculation methodologies are used, whether this be Newtonian or Einsteinian, and I have heard a further quizzical line of inquiry extending from a scientific field known as String Theory.

Why, even the idea of skepticism is subject to skepticism itself, including the proposition that I have made in the beginning of my paragraph above – that there is a virtue in skepticism. Is skepticism necessarily a virtue? Must we discard all forms of assumption in trying to understand things? Some useful concepts that is employed in legal reasoning to come to a conclusion on issues pertaining to evidential burdens is that of standard of proof, presumptions, and rebuttability. That seeks to mitigate the utter fact-denigrating quality that is associated with absolute skepticism. The idea here is that even if we can’t prove something to an absolute certainty, can we say that there is some probative force to be inferred from the facts presented to support the case argued? Then there is the legal device of presumption that is usually coded statutorily to determine the prima facie weight that a court should accord to an evidence used to determine the issue at hand. This presumption is triggered should the conditions stipulated in the statute be fulfilled. For example, the Misuse of Drugs Act in Singapore  has a provision stipulating a presumption of intent of trafficking if a certain dosage of the named drug is found within the possession of a person. Is this presumptions definite? By no means, but it is rebuttable should contrary evidence be provided that vitiates against the proposition induced from the trigger of the presumption. So for the drug case, an intent to traffic drug can be vitiated by showing proof that there was reasonable belief on the part of the accused that the item in his possession was not a drug of the nature he is being accused of.

Back to my topic of skepticism, I would like to address the question, what kinds of skeptical questions may be asked regarding a proposition or a set of information? Let’s say, one reads on the news containing a certain reported event. Well, one straightforward question that I thought may be asked is whether the event really indeed took place. Was it true that there was a case of kidnapping in Nigeria where 300 girls were kidnapped by a militant group? We can question the specific facts of the case – Were there really 300 girls? And then, we can express skepticism at any statements in the news articles that can be rightly categorized as opinions or commentaries instead of reportage of facts. So in relation to the Nigerian kidnapping case mentioned, there was an article that I just read on why the militant group would kidnap those girls. The author writes that the militant group is afraid of the transformative force that educated girls would bring along with them to the social idealogy of the extremist groups. Whether this opinion be true is something that I think one should ask. Is this really the reason why the militant group kidnap those girls? Another article writes that these girls were kidnapped because they believed that they have the right to go to school. Is this again true? Parallel this argument given with the address made by former US president George W Bush following the 9/11 attacks that the reason the terrorists hate Americans was for their freedoms. The more plausible answer would be probably be that they were in opposed to some American foreign policy in the middle east, especially with respect to their attempts to exert control over the oil reserves of the nation. I think that skepticism is rightly to accorded to any attempts to provide a singular explanation for why one human, or a group of humans, do one thing or another. Human psychology is diverse, and different human beings can perform the same action with different reasons, or with a combination of reasons. When I was in my first class for a Tort law module, the professor asked why we chose to study law. Some replied that they believe that law is a noble profession in pursuit of justice and order in society. Others say that they want to have a hand to play in making sound policies for Singapore. And some others straightforwardly replied that they did so for the money. I used to think that the first answer was the only legitimate answer why anyone should study law, but I now figure that the various reasons provided by others in my class also made sense. We probably just differ in terms of the priority we accord to our respective reasons.

I have discovered another area open for a line of skeptical inquiry, and that is the language that is used to frame the proposition itself. For example, in relation to the mention of terrorist and extremist in my passage above, one may ask, what exactly is a terrorist or an extremist? There is a common saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The notion of a terrorist probably doesn’t make much sense unless we identify some qualifying traits to be associated with it. Is a terrorist one who resorts to certain means that is violent in nature? Is a terrorist one who take up a cause that is antithetical to national interest? And I am moreover skeptical that any individual can be categorized by a single label. People often describe individuals according to the profession they hold, and associate characteristics on that person based on their idea of what people of that profession is. You can see an example of how such stereotyping is rife in casual interfaculty debates such as that between the law faculty and the medicine faculty in the law-med games on the motion “This House Believes That Doctors Make Better Spouses Than Lawyers”. It can get a little antagnostic in such debates, although I believe the intent of the debate is to stimulate some good casual witty fun. But I really find it incredible that anyone should frame a motion as such. I actually know of some girls who actually think in such fashion when it comes to picking a suitor. As if there is nothing more to an individual other than his or her profession. Guys are usually more simple. It is the looks that count. Not that this is in anyway more ideal as a way of picking suitors actually. Then again, maybe such gender stereotyping have to be put under skeptical scrutiny as well. Hmmmm…….

That’s that for me in my rumination on the topic of skepticism. Frankly though, a totally skeptical person can be somewhat irritating in conversation, and I think I irk a few people in my life due to my skeptical nature. It can be seen as a challenge to authority to those unfamiliar with it, or a sign of a lack of trust. I suppose there is a room for accepting statements at face-value without question for some forms of casual conversation. We can keep our skepticisms to ourselves sometimes in order to be more pleasant company.