Pseudo-skepticism: What Is Not Critical Thinking?

by Jon Guy

Over the last decade or so, I’ve been a strong advocate for critical thinking, a discipline that can transform lives and give us a new conception of what it means to understand reality. It’s no stretch to say that “everything changes when you adopt a worldview that embraces critical thinking.”

In my last blog post, I sought to clarify some of the misconceptions surrounding the question “What is critical thinking?” However, I’ve come to understand that equally important is the oft-neglected question “What is NOT critical thinking?”

In my book, Think Straight: An Owner’s Manual for the Mind, I spent a lot of time teasing out the nuances of what critical thinking is, and what it means to be a critical thinker. Unfortunately, I didn’t spend enough time on what it isn’t, so in this post, I’m going to do just that and delve into some of the intellectual black holes of pseudo-skepticism.

Cynicism

Cynicism, like skepticism, can be characterized by an attitude of doubt and a desire to challenge new or established truths (or untruths). However, at its roots, cynicism is an inherently flawed worldview, because it’s based on a (biased) negative outlook and the staunch belief that people are only motivated by self-interest. Thus, while the starting point of a cynic may be a healthy disbelief, the built-in negative assumptions, pessimistic worldview, and distrust of established truths will have a tendency to lead the cynic away from facts that don’t align with what they want to believe. In other words, cynics are motivated by negativity and distrust, and will tend to find a reason to dismiss valid evidence regardless of how strong that evidence is.

Viewing the world through the lens of a cynic can lead one into a never-ending spiral of mistrust and doubt, because there will always be a reason to view something through a cynical lens. As one author put it, “while a gullible person always believes, a cynic never believes.”

There are some important differences that set skepticism apart from cynicism, including one’s approach to evidence, the ability to examine claims with an open mind, and the willingness to change your mind. Where skeptics will accept a claim if there is sufficient evidence to support it, cynics are motivated to doubt it on principle. Likewise, skepticism embraces an open mind, which I’ve previously defined as:

1. being willing to change your mind if the evidence demands, and
2. applying the same standard of evidence and proof to all claims.

Without an open mind, cynics limit their ability to discover truths they otherwise disagree with.

Contrarianism

Similarly, contrarianism is a behavior—and sometimes an entire worldview—of those who reflexively defy prevailing opinions or consensus. Contrarians seek alternative viewpoints just to be different, to feel a sense of belonging with like-minded people, or simply for the sake of opposing them. So, while a cynic is motivated by a negative worldview, a contrarian’s motivation is more focused on defiance. A reasonable question is, what is it that contrarians are opposed to? Oftentimes, we see contrarians bemoaning the “official narrative,” insisting that the “mainstream media,” or “Big Agriculture,” or “the government” are involved in some grand conspiracy to make money or somehow put people in harm’s way. Basically, contrarianism is counter-culture ideology where the most important narrative is opposing the narrative.

Thus, contrarianism is inherently reactive and, therefore, isn’t truth-sensitive in the same way that skepticism is. Rather than valuing the process of discovery and accepting any conclusions that are supported by reliable evidence, the contrarian values opposition and seeks only evidence that supports whatever contrary viewpoint they prefer.

Ironically, while contrarians dismiss popular opinion out of hand, they typically follow alternative narratives without applying the same level of criticism to information they want to believe. The irony here is that by reflexively opposing mainstream views in pursuit of independent thinking, contrarians merely succumb to the very herd mentality they believe they’re opposing.

Denialism

Finally, there’s denialism, which can be summed up as the outright rejection of either scientific or historical reality. Denialists employ a range of tactics to appear as though their arguments have merit, which John Cook captured in the catchy acronym FLICC: fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry-picking, and conspiracy theories (see image below for the taxonomy of FLICC). Using these tactics, denialists wantonly reject the realities of evolution, AIDS, the Holocaust, vaccine safety and efficacy, climate change, the benefits of genetically engineered crops, and even the sphericity of the Earth!

Although denialism is often confused with skepticism, the two differ in important ways. Where skepticism is a method of approaching not only claims about truth and reality, but also one’s ability to question their own limitations, biases, and cognitive shortcomings, denialism is marked by the knee-jerk dismissal of anything that contradicts the denialists’ prior beliefs. In other words, skepticism is truth sensitive, self-reflective, and open to new evidence, whereas denialism is goal-driven, closed-minded, and heavily influenced by preferred narratives.

Oftentimes, people revert to denialism when confronted with an uncomfortable truth, or when reality is complicated and conspiracy theories provide comfort in knowing what is really going on behind the scenes. Using FLICC, denialists convince themselves that they are following scientific principles when in reality they are doing everything but.

Understanding the differences between skepticism and pseudo-skepticism is not only important to the pursuit of knowledge, but it allows us to combat misinformation, and gives us an opportunity to be critical of our own biases and flaws in cognition. We’re better prepared to ask ourselves whether our beliefs fall into the category of critical thinking, or whether they’re trapped in the intellectual black hole of pseudo-skepticism.

About the Author
Jon Guy is an independent researcher and science communicator who writes about critical thinking, pseudoscience, logic, psychology, and related topics. He is the author of Think Straight: An Owner's Manual for the Mind, a frequent guest writer for Thinking is Power, and the host of The Curious Case of Science, a YouTube channel aimed at tackling contemporary issues in science and critical thinking.