The sentiment expressed here might be considered foundation for modern, critical skepticism: the absence of good reasons for believing a proposition is itself good reason to disbelieve it, at least in the passive sense and possibly in the active sense. Whenever skeptics critique some position, a principle target of criticism is the supposed ground for that belief.
- I wish to propose for the reader’s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.
- Bertrand Russell, Introduction to Sceptical Essays
Ah, but there is the tricky part: what counts as good grounds for belief? I don’t think that I’ve ever encountered someone who consciously and deliberately adopted poor grounds for a belief of theirs. In every case I can think of, even the most ridiculous, people have thought themselves to have been using good grounds for their beliefs. Perhaps they acknowledged that their grounds weren’t the best possible, but they did insist that their grounds were good enough.
This is, I think, rather similar to the observation that unlike the stereotypical villains one sees in movies and cartoons, no one in real life really sits about in their lair cackling about their “evil” plans. In reality, no one thinks of themselves as evil. In reality, people believe that they are doing good — at least, they think they are doing good in the long run. They may acknowledge that they are doing some unfortunate things in the short run, but as they say; “you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.”
It would appear to be unwise, then, to critique a person’s position by simply saying that they relying upon poor grounds. This would certainly work in some cases, for example someone who consciously adopts and uses skepticism normally but is simply making a mistake in some particular instance. In other cases, though, this accusation would be more likely to cause a person to grow defense and even wonder about you a bit.
So what can be done? It occurs to me that it might make some sense to draw the person out a bit and ask them why they think that these particular grounds are good. This could initiate a discussion about what counts as “good reasons,” what doesn’t, and why. With some luck and patience it might be possible to thereby demonstrate to this person that their grounds aren’t nearly as good as they once thought (or maybe they’ll show you that they are far better than you realized).
Of course, this assumes that the person in question really is committed to reason, critical thinking, and reliance on good reasons for their beliefs. After all, just because a person thinks that they have good reasons for their beliefs doesn’t mean that they have a strong commitment to rational standards and it certainly doesn’t mean that they are skilled when it comes to critical thinking. These are necessary, at least to a minimal degree, if you are going to accomplish much in such a conversation.
I did, after all, say that you’d need some patience along side some luck.
