Skeptical vs. Cynical

Monday, 30 October 2023

When is it appropriate to be skeptical of a claim of some sort, when cynical about it, and when, if ever, neither? (“Skeptical” means, loosely defined, questioning and unwilling to accept a claim without further evidence. “Cynical” means, loosely defined, having no serious doubt that a claim is mistaken and therefore being uninterested in examining any further evidence or analysis.)

Let’s start with the last (“neither”): I’d argue that in most normal circumstances, it’s rarely a bad thing to exercise a bit of caution about accepting what someone is telling you. But there are times not to be skeptical. Sometimes, it’s a matter of well established fact: I suppose there may be some narrow grounds for questioning whether the sun will rise and set every day, and even some reason to think that someday it won’t (our whole solar system is surely doomed in the very long run). But expressing any serious skepticism about the regularity of sunrises and sunsets is a waste of time. And if your boyfriend or spouse tells you s/he had to work late, probably wise not to be questioning unless there’s been some reason to start having doubts.

But any claim presented to you as something you’re not sure of but should accept? Be skeptical.

Let me offer an example where I was skeptical bordering on cynical and briefly sketch out how that played out.

I have had a number of treatment sessions, over the years, with physical therapy (p.t.) clinics, and I’ve been disappointed. These sessions have not seemed to have done me any real good. This could be because of inadequate discipline on my part in following up on prescribed exercises or because of inadequate skills and commitment to evidence-based medicine by those providing therapy.

In one case, years ago, a therapist recommended “dry needle therapy”—apparently quite similar to acupuncture. He assured me that this was based on an empirically tested and proven procedure and offered, when I responded skeptically, to provide me with a copy of a supportive study. After pressing him, he finally provided an article—but it was not an empirical study; it was a collection of testimonials dressed up in “scientific” language and formatting. Not persuasive to this skeptical guy.

Some of my problems got better over time—but human physical problems sometimes do, just because of ordinary self-healing.

In short, I had gotten so skeptical about p.t. that I was sliding toward outright cynicism. Then a doctor I consulted suggested p.t. and, even after I expressed skepticism, gently pressed and then prescribed some.

Enter Emory Clinic Orthopaedics, Sports & Spine therapy. Dr. Elizabeth Dixon, Physical Therapist and doctor of physical therapy—who quickly and consistently asks everyone to call her “Liz”—met me, took specific measurements of my range of motion and related matters, and prescribed (and demonstrated) various exercises.

I said, unseriously, that I wanted to take her picture to show to my wife and make her jealous. After making sure I was indeed joking, she struck the saucy pose you see below and agreed.

Dr. Liz Dixon

Others at the clinic—Asiah Britt, Faith Baird, and Savannah DeMan and people whose names I didn’t get—contributed to the engaging atmosphere and supportive efforts.

And it worked. I didn’t turn 35 years old or magically get over all my problems, but I did actually get better—measurably better. And it has helped me resolve to be more responsible about my own actions.

And to be a little closer to skeptical and a little further from cynical.

Another example: I subscribed to another Substack column, by “Ricky” from Council Estate Media—and he subscribed to my Letters. Recently, he posted something along the lines of “There just cannot be any doubt that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians in Gaza.” I don’t know exactly what he wrote, and I cannot go back to his blog and check. I pushed back on whatever he said (and cannot remember exactly what I wrote) and assumed we’d disagree but that that would produce an exchange, possibly with some posting back and forth of links to evidence or analysis. That’s not what happened. Instead he unsubscribed to my bits, kicked me off his subscriber list, and blocked me from resubscribing.

Ricky is not obligated to read my stuff nor to let me read his, of course. But it is disturbing that a fellow writer (and alleged fellow leftist) apparently thinks no skepticism at all is needed in evaluating claims that flow from a deadly war. War almost invariably inspires lies, spinning the truth, hiding facts, misrepresentation, and the like. Even when the side you strongly support declares something, you’d be wise to be skeptical.

And I’d even assert, you’d be wise to accept serious exchanges of views.

Within reason. If someone came on to my Letters page and ranted about gays or women or blacks or Americans or Muslims or Jews or atheists, spewing mere invective, I’d block him or her unhesitatingly.

So, what about the 7 October attacks by Hamas on Israel?

I’m a long way from being an expert on Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Judaism, Islam, the Middle East, etc. I have, as far as I know, no Jewish or Israeli roots, no Arab or Muslim roots.

I have but have not yet read a 2006 book by Jimmy Carter that seems promising—

I'm a leftie, a socialist, who actively supported Bernie Sanders and have been a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. And I oppose Bibi Netanyahu and his repressive, right-wing, undemocratic government and have real sympathy with Palestinians.

But I also condemn unreservedly the sadistic terrorism of Hamas and insist there is no justification for it—none. And that Israel has the clear right to pursue Hamas and bring its leaders and fighters to justice.

I have serious qualms about how hard it will be to deal with Hamas and great trepidation about the considerable loss of life, including of children, in Gaza, that is quite likely.

So, I stand with Israel, but not unreservedly.

And I repudiate any cheering or support of the Hamas terrorism that happened on 7 October.

I will remain a leftist/socialist but *not* a member of DSA if the group cheers on Hamas.

I’ve read a fair number of analyses of the current crisis in the Middle East and of the abuses of reporting on it. And about moral equivalency and about Trump v. Biden and about other matters that should approached skeptically. (See links and citations below for much more.)

When Mike Johnson, the newly elected Speaker of the US House, sent me an e-mail claiming he valued and wanted my opinion, I tried to reply and tell him, honestly, what I think. But I could not get past a fundraising page asking for my money to even begin an opinion survey. That got Johnson and the GOP no money and renewed cynicism in me, of course.

I urge skepticism and, mostly, avoiding cynicism, about war, Ukraine and Russia, Biden, Trump, religious and political leaders, and morality.

But I don’t pretend that’s easy.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/10/26/gaza-hospital-blast-evidence-israel-hamas/?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/27/trump-sidney-powell-jenna-ellis-plea-deals

utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere_special_report&location=alert

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/opinion/palestine-biden-activists-israel.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/opinion/israel-gaza-colonizers.html

October 27, 2023

My Old Friend Is Ripping Down Posters of Kidnapped Children

https://quillette.com/2023/10/28/dead-civilians-and-the-allocation-of-blame/

Should we be moral skeptics?

---

Note: Anyone may copy and publish what I or my guests write, provided proper credit is given, that it’s not done for commercial purposes, that I am notified of the copying (you can just leave a comment saying where the copy is being published), and provided that what we write is not quoted out of context or distorted.

---

Thanks again for reading Letters … . Subscribe for free (always) to receive new posts and support my work.