Skepticism in an age of polarization

I’m a doubtful person. I often get criticized for holding my opinions too loosely. My ideologic promiscuity is disconcerting to many, to the point of being almost upsetting. I would like to take a chance, if the reader does not mind a little bit of philosophy, to defend skepticism in an age of polarization.

Being skeptical means to continuously doubt everything. This is extremely difficult to achieve since we need axioms to guide us through our reasoning. Take political affiliation for example: how would you ever decide upon a party if all the possible choices are questionable? Without truths, we are lost. But this doesn’t mean you have to doubt everything at once: You can challenge given truths one by one.

This is what most scientific breakthroughs did. In the XVI century Copernicus told the world that it was the Earth that goes around the Sun and not the other way around. He didn’t try to refute everything that science at that moment considered as valid, but by challenging geocentrism he got a little closer to the truth as we know it today. Science wins by constantly questioning the nature of things and refining our knowledge.

On polarization

In our daily lives, when trying to solve a dilemma we don’t tend to be skeptical enough. We try to describe the world as simply as we possibly can with a very limited selection of opinions to choose from. We need a menu. And the less choice, the better. This leads to a very polarized pool of opinions that most of the time would contain only two options. Liberal or Conservative? Against or in favor? Guilty or innocent?

While convenient, polarization can also be very limiting. Just image wearing glasses that only allow you to see black and white. Wouldn’t you see a richer image of reality by simply taking them off? While it may take additional effort to explore other possible points of views, it surely is worth it.

Playing devil’s advocate is not enough. We must weigh whether given options are satisfactory and find new ones it they aren’t. One should always hunt down those false dichotomies but at the same time be aware that being in the middle is hard. Each side will most likely get upset, since for a lot of people, if you are not with them, you are against them.

Conclusion

In an age where we have more information than ever, it is imperative to question its truthiness and create more diverse opinions. For that, we need to have proper conversations. Doubt, think and dialogue. Rinse and repeat.