The value of skepticism about so-called "facts" is not limited to the physical sciences. When
it comes to the social sciences we should always be skeptical about what is presented to us as
historical fact. Textbooks can paint distorted pictures of historical events, and of their causes
and consequences. After all, history in the making is always viewed firsthand through the eyes
of subjective witnesses, then recorded by fallible journalists with their own cultural biases and
agendas, then interpreted by historians with limited, and often tainted, information. And when it
comes to factual assumptions underlying theories in the social science, we should be even
more distrusting and skeptical, because such assumptions inherently defy deductive proof, or
disproof. Skepticism should extend to the law as well. While law students, lawyers, legislators,
and jurists must learn to appreciate traditional legal doctrines and principles, at the same time
they must continually question their correctness----m terms of their fairness and continuing
relevance.
Admittedly, in some cases undue skepticism can be counterproductive, and even harmrial.
For instance, we must accept current notions about the constancy of gravity and other basic
laws of physics; otherwise, we would live in continual fear that the world around us would
literally come crashing down on us. Undue skepticism can also be psychologically unhealthy
when distrust borders on paranoia. Finally, common sense informs me that young people
should first develop a foundation of experiential knowledge before they are encouraged to
think critically about what they are told is fact.
To sum up, a certain measure of distrust of so-called "facts" is the very stuff of which human
knowledge and progress are fashioned, whether in the physical sciences, the social sciences,
or the law. Therefore, with few exceptions I strongly agree that we should strive to look at facts
through skeptical eyes.Issue 124
"The true value of a civilization is reflected in its artistic creations rather than in its scientific
accomplishments."
The speaker contends that so-called "facts" often turn out to be false, and therefore that we
136
should distrust whatever we are told is factual. Although the speaker overlooks certain
circumstances in which undue skepticism might be counterproductive, and even harmful, on
balance I agree that we should not passively accept whatever is passed off as fact; otherwise,
human knowledge would never advance.
I turn first to so-called "scientific facts," by which I mean current prevailing notions about the
nature of the physical universe that have withstood the test of rigorous scientific and logical
scrutiny. The very notion of scientific progress is predicated on such scrutiny. Indeed the
history of science is in large measure a history of challenges to so-called "scientific
facts"--challenges which have paved the way for scientific progress. For example, in
challenging the notion that the Earth was in a fixed position at the center of the universe,
Copernicus paved for the way for the corroborating observations of Galileo a century later, and
ultimately for Newton’s principles of gravity upon which all modern science depends. The
staggering cumulative impact of Copernicus’ rejection of what he had been told was true
provides strong support for the speaker’s advice when it comes to scientific facts.
Another example of the value of distrusting what we are told is scientific fact involves the
debate over whether human behavioral traits are a function of internal physical forces ("nature")
or of learning and environment ("nurture"). Throughout human history the prevailing view has
shifted many times. The ancients assumed that our behavior was governed by the whims of
the gods; in medieval times it became accepted fact that human behavior is dictated by bodily
humours, or fluids; this "fact" later yielded to the notion that we are primarily products of our
upbringing and environment. Now researchers are discovering that many behavioral traits are
largely a function of the unique neurological structure of each individual’s brain. Thus only by
distrusting facts about human behavior can we advance in our scientific knowledge and, in turn,
learn to deal more effectively with human behavioral issues in such fields as education,
juvenile delinquency, criminal reform, and mental illness.The value of skepticism about so-called "facts" is not limited to the physical sciences. When
it comes to the social sciences we should always be skeptical about what is presented to us as
historical fact. Textbooks can paint distorted pictures of historical events, and of their causes
and consequences. After all, history in the making is always viewed firsthand through the eyes
of subjective witnesses, then recorded by fallible journalists with their own cultural biases and
agendas, then interpreted by historians with limited, and often tainted, information. And when it
comes to factual assumptions underlying theories in the social science, we should be even
more distrusting and skeptical, because such assumptions inherently defy deductive proof, or
disproof. Skepticism should extend to the law as well. While law students, lawyers, legislators,
and jurists must learn to appreciate traditional legal doctrines and principles, at the same time
they must continually question their correctness----m terms of their fairness and continuing
relevance.
Admittedly, in some cases undue skepticism can be counterproductive, and even harmrial.
For instance, we must accept current notions about the constancy of gravity and other basic
laws of physics; otherwise, we would live in continual fear that the world around us would
literally come crashing down on us. Undue skepticism can also be psychologically unhealthy
when distrust borders on paranoia. Finally, common sense informs me that young people
should first develop a foundation of experiential knowledge before they are encouraged to
think critically about what they are told is fact.
137
To sum up, a certain measure of distrust of so-called "facts" is the very stuff of which human
knowledge and progress are fashioned, whether in the physical sciences, the social sciences,
or the law. Therefore, with few exceptions I strongly agree that we should strive to look at facts
through skeptical eyes.
The Pool of Argument Topics
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.