The purpose of critical reading and critical thinking is getting a better understanding of ideas and to get closer to the truth. In our Critical Reading Toolbox series, we’ll be covering resources and ideas that will help guide your process.
Critical Reading and the importance of Healthy Skepticism
Merriam-Webster defines a cynic as being “a fault-finding captious critic.” Healthy skepticism helps guide you to the truth and better evidence. Being a cynic doesn’t really get you closer to the truth or understanding. It’s kind of like being negative just to be negative.
Healthy skepticism is helpful and directed towards veriying the strength of the proof while being a cynic isn’t. Criticism is fine, but finding flaws without solid information to back it up is just a waste of time.
### So, what is “healthy skepticism”?
Interestingly enough, the entire notion of “healthy skepticism” doesn’t have a firm definition. It’s another one of those things where you are expected to know it when you see it.
If you think of it as a spectrum, you have uncritical acceptance on one side, healthy skepticism in the middle, and cynicism on the other side. You don’t want to blindly accept everything you read, but you also don’t want to blindly reject it, either.
So, how do you know if you’re being a critic or a crank?
It all comes down to how much reliable evidence it takes to convince you of a point and whether your questions actually matter.
Does that mean that I shouldn’t question things that are considered common knowledge or settled?
No. It’s actually important to reconsider things we think are settled. The pursuits of truth and knowledge don’t really end. The most we can hope for is the best conclusion based upon the best available evidence. And part of getting the best understanding is making sure that everything we rely on is based on the best information available. We have to stop seeing things in terms of right or wrong and fact or fiction. We need to start seeing things in terms of being the best in light of the available information. But, we need to be sure that we aren’t going from merely vetting the information to being a cynic.
How can I tell if I’m just vetting the information with healthy skepticism, or if I’m actually being a cynic?
You’ve crossed the line between healthy skepticism and cynicism is when you’re asking for unreasonable amounts of proof or if you’re nitpicking. The legal system tends to understand that, while you can’t always prove things with 100% certainty, getting to the point that all the remaining doubts are kind of dumb is close enough. Even in the criminal justice system, the state doesn’t have to prove that you’re guilty beyond all doubt to be convicted. That’s why “reasonable doubt” is a thing. I think this is a helpful way of considering how reasonable your objections are.
If you’re raising objections that are really out there (like questioning the moon landing) or don’t go to the heart of the topic you’re arguing about, then you are probably being a cynic. Conspiracy theories and nitpicking? That’s being cynical. Looking into the strength of the evidence used to support an important point? That’s healthy skepticism.
That part about nit-picking and having questions that actually matter: Don’t all the details matter?
No. And this is really important to understand: Some details really don’t matter. I like to call details like this “interesting, but unimportant.”
If an article is using really reliable evidence on the main point but using weak or even incorrect evidence on something that isn’t really related to the main point, then your nit-picking doesn’t do anything to disprove the main point. If you’re attacking something that doesn’t attack the premise the writer put out there, then that’s being a “captious critic.”
When does nit-picking help?
Nit-picking helps when you’re reading something that doesn’t cite to reliable sources. Let’s say you have someone who is making a point about something that isn’t common knowledge, and they aren’t offering reliable sources to back up their point. And they are making mistakes in other areas. Their mistakes make their reasoning a little suspect. Which means that you can’t really rely on anything they’re saying that doesn’t have a source. The mistakes don’t mean that they’re wrong; it just means that you need to dig deeper.
Key Takeaway:
- When you’re thinking or reading critically, you have to find the balance between being too trusting and being too skeptical.
