 Skepticism is dying, or at the very least, its definition is changing. A skeptic used to be a critical thinker, full of doubt and wary of popular opinion. Nowadays, skeptics form a fashionable clique. Skepticism used to be a methodology, a way of thinking about the world. But nowadays, it's a particular set of beliefs. I refer to this distinction as pop skepticism versus proper skepticism. So first, let me define my idea of proper skepticism. It's an overall approach to knowledge. Humans are constantly bombarded with information, and it's difficult to discern truth from falsehood. We receive contradictory information all the time. Our peers tell us one thing, while our elders tell us another. The news media says one thing, alternative media says something different. Our senses tell us one thing, but our minds believe the opposite. Without a method for sorting through all this information, discerning the truth is kind of like gambling. You might get lucky, but chances are you're betting wrong. Proper skepticism approaches this problem from a clear standpoint. Don't believe anything unless you're given overwhelming reason to. Assume propositions are false or unknown by default. Only hold beliefs which withstand being put through an intellectual meat grinder, and even then, keep open the possibility of being wrong. In short, doubt. Doubt yourself, doubt your peers, the experts, the media, and any proposition which you ever come across, even if you read it on the internet. Notice this kind of skepticism posits nothing about the world. It's about how we think. Contrast this with pop skepticism. Calling yourself a skeptic today usually means you identify with a particular set of beliefs, primarily atheism, physicalism, and empiricism. Pop skeptics would universally agree with the following. There is nothing supernatural, no gods, no angels or ghosts, and believing in such things is superstition. Number two, the physical world is all that exists, and to believe in non-physical existence is either fanciful or incoherent. Number three, science is the ultimate method of discerning truth. If a proposition does not have physical evidence and data, or if it is not falsifiable, it should be rejected. Number four, every intellectual study is ultimately secondary to and reducible to physics. Implying causality outside of physics is akin to belief in magic or sorcery. Number five, religious thinking is primitive, and it may be a sign of schizophrenia or schizotypalism as it's sometimes called. Notice how these propositions are twofold. Physicalism isn't merely a conclusion, but suggesting the opposite that you could have some kind of non-physical existence is essentially superstition. Pop skeptics don't simply lack a belief in God, they think that theism is equivalent to the belief in the flying spaghetti monster. They don't believe in spiritualism, and if you do, there might be something wrong with your brain. Having any kind of disagreement with scientific consensus isn't just wrong, it's irrational. You see the pattern? Each statement about the world is coupled with, quote, and if you disagree, it's because you're intellectually primitive. A great example of this is the so-called Breitz movement, supported by names like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett. They've tried to rename their own intellectual movement. Adherents are called Breitz. And those who disagree, well, I guess they aren't so bright. It's a clever way to disparage and dismiss anyone who disagrees with their own particular worldview. Now, while proper skeptics can be atheists, of course, they don't see theists as crazy or naive. Anybody who is sufficiently skeptical, who's actually done the difficult research, must respect opposing beliefs. With almost no exceptions, any worldview can be rigorously defended if you look hard enough. Even wild religious arguments can be well-reasoned. If you think that all Mormons are crazy, then you aren't skeptical enough. And if you think that believing in a non-material consciousness is naive, it is only a reflection of your own naivete. Of course, I don't say this pejoratively. I mean quite literally. If you can't respect a Buddhist's arguments about consciousness, it's because you don't understand them. Of course, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all these ideas are true. I'm just saying they're well-reasoned and subtle. And any sincere truth-seeker must grapple with them. This usually means going beyond the popular mainstream arguments, which tend to be crappy and ill-reasoned. Rejecting poor arguments in strawmen is not an intellectual accomplishment. If you've dismissed Islam, but only understand a simplistic version of the worldview, then you've made a critical error. It's like saying, I don't believe in God because I don't believe in magic genies. Well, my friend, you have successfully defeated an argument that nobody makes. And I can almost guarantee any proper skeptic who seeks out strong counter-arguments will find them. Proper skepticism leaves no room for arrogant, uninformed dismissal of contrary propositions. Discernment is the tool of the skeptic, not dismissal. For example, do you believe in the existence of broom-riding witches? Now, before you answer, be honest with yourself. Have you done the research? Have you thought about it? Have you had any experiences? Or does such a belief so deeply contradict your worldview that you dismiss it out of hand? When you overcome knee-jerk dismissal and seek out the best arguments and explanations, you might be surprised what you come across. Seemingly juvenile myths might have a more interesting story than you think. I have a link in this article about the history of broom-riding witches that everybody should check out. Another weakness with pop skepticism is the enormous amount of trust in the scientific process. Yes, the scientific method is great for a lot of things, but it is not a panacea. There are enormous holes and flaws within science and the peer-review process. Biases, inaccuracies, limitations, and scandals all permeate scientific work, but these shortcomings are hard to see unless your default position is proper skepticism. Proper skeptics are necessarily suspicious of authority, whether it's papal authority or academic authority or scientific authority. Blindly believing a scientist is absolutely no different from blindly believing a priest. It's outsourcing your critical thinking to somebody else. You, not the expert scientists, not your peers, not the clergy, not your parents, you are the final decision maker regarding your beliefs. Truth-seeking is ultimately a solo journey which must scrutinize everybody regardless of their credentialing. In fact, I'd say I believe pop skepticism is nearly the opposite of proper skepticism. Not because of any conclusions, but because of the methodology. True skepticism is not about science or peer-review, it is about doubt. Unless you doubt yourself, you will never have a clear understanding of somebody else's point of view. And in other words, you will be stuck in a state of naive ignorance. Few things are as liberating and as terrifying as realizing that you don't know what you're talking about and neither does the expert you were listening to. If you like these ideas, make sure to subscribe. And if you want to help create a more rational worldview, then please head over to my Patreon page and you can support content like this for $1. To read this article or to learn about my books, check out steve-patterson.com.