Can skeptics be skeptical of skepticism?

An examination of this apparently paradoxical question:

“There’s no such thing as truth.”

What is wrong with this statement? Well, it’s a statement that is presented as being factual (true) and yet it’s claiming that there is no such thing as truth. The statement refutes itself. Claims or statements like this one create what is known as a self-refuting paradox: the claim could only be true if it were false!

The frequently asked question “are you skeptical of skepticism?” also attempts to create or illustrate the same sort of paradox. If a person is not skeptical of skepticism then they are not being skeptical; thus any claim to being a skeptic must be false. i.e. they are being as dogmatic in their acceptance of skepticism as any ‘believer’ who accepts their particular belief without question. And if they are skeptical of skepticism, then what good reason do they have for advocating something they are skeptical of? If they’re skeptical of the paranormal and skeptical of skepticism, what’s the difference?

At first glance it looks like a very clever question that reveals a fatal inconsistency with skepticism. So how can skeptics tackle this awkward question?

A definition of terms

In order for skeptics to deal with the question “are you skeptical of skepticism?” firstly we need to look at the definitions of the terms used:

Skeptical

Skeptical means doubtful. The Cambridge online dictionary defines skeptical as “doubting that something is true or useful”. For example: “The minister claimed that raising fuel tax would help combat global warming; but the audience were skeptical”.
Skepticism

The common usage of skepticism also means to be doubtful. For example: “The government’s claim to have reduced poverty was met with skepticism”.

However, scientific skepticism, as used by skeptics, does not simply mean to be doubtful. In fact, skepticism is actually a methodology, not a single concept. It is an approach to claims and knowledge that includes many components (see: What is Skepticism?).

Whenever a word has more than one meaning, there’s always the possibility of making a fallacy of equivocation and that is what is happening with the question “are you skeptical of skepticism?” When people use this question they intend it to mean “are you doubtful of your system of doubt?” but when it’s applied to scientific skepticism, what they’re actually asking is “are you doubtful of your methodology?” - in other words, do you or can you question your methods of inquiry? The intended use of the question is meant to create the paradoxical situation described above but the actual question (as it pertains to scientific skepticism that skeptics advocate) creates no such problem.

The methods of inquiry that constitute skepticism should be subject to doubt and inquiry in the same way that other things are investigated in this manner and the fact that methodologies are open to scrutiny in this way just adds to the strength of skepticism as a tool for acquiring knowledge. Indeed, this is why skepticism has changed from early skepticism where knowledge was thought to be impossible (which is self-refuting!) to modern scientific skepticism that is used as a tool to acquire knowledge. If skepticism wasn't open to doubt or scrutiny, it would never change.

Conclusion

The question “are you skeptical of skepticism?” is meant to show that skepticism leads to skeptics holding a paradoxical position; however, as has been explained, this seeming paradox is only created by making a fallacy of equivocation by those who don’t know what modern, scientific skepticism actually is. Skepticism is not the same as merely being skeptical; and not only can skeptics be skeptical of skepticism – they should be.