10 Signs of a Fake Skeptic

How the language of science gets abused.

“You can never be too careful.” So the age-old saying goes. It’s a good reminder, for children crossing the street and teenagers learning to drive — and now, for everyday adults reading the news.

In a modern world where “alternative facts” and “fake news” run rampant, there’s been a major push for critical thinking and skepticism. This is certainly warranted. But hyper-vigilance is a double-edged sword that sometimes becomes the very thing it seeks to destroy.

The pseudoskeptic’s playbook

Skepticism is the backbone of scientific inquiry. Without it, we’d never ask questions, nor would we repeatedly evaluate our conclusions to those questions.

But when it comes to skepticism, it’s important that, “skeptics not abandon reasonable agnosticism in favor of a dismissive cynicism.” So writes Lawrence Torcello in his article, “The Trouble with Pseudoskepticism.”

The term “pseudoskepticism” was popularized in the late 20th century by Marcello Truzzi, sociologist and co-founder of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. In essence, a pseudoskeptic — or, a fake skeptic — is someone who doubts for doubt’s sake. They’ll reflexively question all claims they encounter in the name of “critical thinking.” But the thinking stops there. In reality, they don’t engage in any proper scientific investigation — and because of that, they’d never be convinced by any scientific evidence.

According to Truzzi, these are ten tell-tale signs of a fake skeptic:

1. Tendency to deny rather than doubt

Instead of asking, “What about this argument is and isn’t strong?” a fake skeptic might say, “This argument seems off, so it’s probably not true.”

2. Double standards in the application of criticism

Fake skeptics often apply strict criticism to others’ beliefs but won’t apply the same amount of scrutiny to their own stances.

3. Making judgements without full inquiry

This might look like dismissing a claim because it seems silly or outlandish or “woo-woo.” Or alternatively, because it seems like establishment propaganda.

4. Tendency to discredit rather than investigate

This is a hallmark feature of a fake skeptic. Their entire gimmick rests on saying, “Well, your claim might not be true…” and then patting themselves on the back for putting in a hard day’s work.

5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks

In particular, claiming that the other side is brainwashed or that they lack critical thinking skills.

6. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof

Usually, by cherry-picking data. Or, by citing experts with impressive credentials — just not ones relevant to the topic at hand.

7. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof

A fake skeptic believes they’re justified in doubting everything equally without providing substantial evidence or rationale to support their doubt.

8. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence

This is where anecdotal evidence and correlation-based claims thrive. Fake skeptics believe that what could be true holds the same weight as what the evidence says is true.

9. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it

This ties into the misunderstanding that any uncertainty, error, or dissent in science automatically means that the entire finding is unreliable.

10. Tendency to dismiss all evidence

AKA the old, “Science is all about questioning everything!” (so I’ll just keep asking the same questions over and over even though sufficient answers already exist) tactic.

Admittedly, I’m pretty guilty of some of these. I’ve always been one to play “what if?” to no end, and I can be somewhat of an armchair theorist. But I’ve come to realize that my excessive skepticism is, to an extent, a defense mechanism.

“You’re all sheeple. Me? I’m a freethinker!”

On the surface, doubting everything may seem like a valid and even noble approach to our misinformation crisis. But being overly skeptical is more nefarious than you might think.

When a person identifies as a skeptic, there’s a whole string of connotations that comes along with it: practical, critical thinker, and above all, open-minded.

When skepticism becomes a “personality trait,” a person can claim moral high-ground by arguing they’re inherently rational and unbiased. So if a true skeptic were to come along and question the fake skeptic’s thought processes, the fake skeptic could cry, “this is an attack on reason and logical analysis!”

When someone employs skepticism this way, it’s not to get to the bottom of things — it’s to insulate themselves from the criticism that they’re being irrational. It’s to appear grounded and not easily swayed. To portray the image that they’re a maverick who “does their own research.”

All this might seem relatively harmless, or a bit self-important at most. But misusing the term “skepticism” is damaging in several ways. For one, it gives self-proclaimed skeptics an unfounded edge over mainstream science, which in contrast appears inherently corrupt and dogmatic. And two, it undermines the general public’s understanding of the scientific method.

Pseudoskeptics attempt to portray themselves as scientifically objective while they depict mainstream scientists as credulous dogmatists … an odd twinning of extreme credulity and cynical disbelief is particularly pronounced since pseudoskeptics seek to both deny accepted science and adopt the authority of scientific skepticism. — Lawrence Torcello

This is why fake skepticism can be so insidious: instead of outright saying, “I don’t believe in that and never will!” a fake skeptic will be more subtle and go, “Well, it could be true, but it also might not be…” We’ve seen this done by the fossil fuel and tobacco industries to manufacture controversy on the risks of climate change and cigarettes, respectively, by making it seem like the facts are still up for debate.

This type of rhetoric is simply denial masked as contentiousness. It appropriates the language of science to make a bad argument seem substantial. It’s agenda-driven, weaponized doubt.

Being a responsible skeptic

Being a responsible skeptic is no easy task. As humans, we’re wired to look for patterns and connections in our world, to pursue our inkling that “something’s fishy here.” And we love nothing more than to be the underdog who was once brushed off by the masses, but who in the end is proven right and finally granted permission to say, “See, I told you so!”

While questioning authority and the status quo is necessary, it must be balanced with a certain virtue — one that sets the true skeptics apart from the fake ones:

Intellectual humility.

It’s about acknowledging how little we actually know, about being aware of our inevitable biases. It involves putting our egos aside for the genuine pursuit of truth. And it means developing the wit to know where and when skepticism should be applied.

Even Descartes echoes this idea:

I did not imitate the skeptics who doubt only for doubting’s sake, and pretend to be always undecided; on the contrary, my whole intention was to arrive at a certainty, and to dig away the drift and the sand until I reached the rock or the clay beneath.

There lies the essence of true skepticism: it’s not a position, but a process.