Last week, I got some useful feedback on a post from earlier this year, Why “Do Your Own Research” Is Bad Advice. The feedback, from a friend who also teaches critical thinking, focused on one line that stood out: Don’t confuse skepticism with justification to promote your own opinion. Of course, I meant: If you are skeptical of a point of view, good; then investigate the research literature on that topic further. Don’t assume, because you’re skeptical of a concept, what you believe is correct by default.

The received feedback extended to an example of how people conflate skepticism with justification: the observation that many say things like, ‘I don’t believe anything I hear on the news’ and, then, in the next breath, parrot off some spiel they learned from the one news source with which they do agree. I have observed many such arguments where once an individual has established that they are skeptical of an idea, it’s as if they feel they’ve finished all the heavy lifting with respect to good thinking and then, once established as skeptical, somehow have carte blanche to posit whatever they think to be true as fact. Sources be damned!

What, really, is skepticism? Skepticism refers to a process associated with: the challenging of ideas; withholding judgment before engaging all the evidence or when the evidence and reasons are insufficient; looking at findings from various perspectives; and the taking of a position and the ability to change position when the evidence and reasons are sufficient (Dwyer, 2017; 2025; Dwyer and colleagues, 2016). From a critical thinking perspective, skepticism refers to a disposition toward critical thinking; the latter being an inclination, tendency, or willingness to perform a given thinking skill (Dwyer, 2017; Facione, Facione and Giancarlo, 1997; Ku, 2009; Valenzuela, Nieto and Saiz, 2011).

How Critical Thinkers Approach Uncertainty and Decision-Making

Critical thinkers are often content to abstain from a decision when they know they need more information or time to process that information. They’re okay with ‘no decision’ for the time being. That’s because ‘no decision’ is typically better than the wrong decision. When we are skeptical, we can choose not to accept an idea because we might decide there is insufficient evidence available. But critical thinkers also know that the void left by that indecision does not have to be filled right away, as if by some place-marker for truth. Critical thinking requires objectively evaluating all possibilities; critical thinkers don’t adopt an alternative conclusion by default. One idea doesn’t necessarily affect another. Both ideas can be wrong.

For example, some people get a hard time when involved in collaborative decision-making when, as part of their evaluation, they identify an issue with the proposed solution. For example, “I don’t think this solution will work because of x, y, and z.” A natural response may be: ‘Well, then you come up with something better!’ I understand why people would reply this way, but it remains that the onus isn’t really on the person who identified the issue to do this. By rights, they should be commended for identifying the issue with the solution before it was implemented. From a critical-thinking standpoint, they are right to halt the decision-making process, even if it means there is no decision for the time being. Of course, that only works if they have evidence on why it won’t work. Saying it won’t work without evidence is akin to cynicism.

Perhaps a broader, useful analogy is war. When two groups are at war, it’s natural for those not directly involved to take sides; some level of bias will always creep into our judgment. However, just because you are against one side (because what they have done is ‘wrong’ or even criminal), they are labeled the bad guys, rightfully. It doesn’t mean that the other side is necessarily good by default. Both sides could well be ‘bad guys,’ and neither might deserve your support. Similarly, I’ve written about the U.S. party system here in similar ways. Just because you don’t like Democratic Party policies doesn’t make you a Republican and vice versa. Decision-making is not black and white. Sometimes, the only practical decision isn’t a good one, but rather the best bad decision or ‘lesser of evils.’ Other times, the best decision is no decision, until an acceptable one is developed.

The feedback got me thinking about what skepticism is and what it isn’t. Consistent with the example in the feedback, skepticism is not being ‘skeptical’ of every idea thrown at you until you hear one that matches your existing worldview. No, that’s confirmation bias. This is not skepticism; a person may pretend to be skeptical to persuade their audience they are thinking critically, but that’s not the case. They are close-minded to all ideas inconsistent with their own.

Skepticism Is Not Cynicism

Many differences lie between them, but one is particularly relevant here. Skeptics, though not easily convinced, are open-minded to changing their perspective in light of sufficient evidence. Cynics likewise show scepticism, but when presented with sufficient evidence, they move the goalposts through illogical reasoning that makes the evidence insufficient to change perspective. Other times, they might dismiss an idea outright with irrelevant statements of distrust or bad faith; and we’ve all done this from time to time.

For example, when a billionaire starts a charity fund alongside a substantial donation for some worthy cause, many people might jump to the cynical conclusion that it’s just a PR stunt or a tax write-off. I imagine most people, like me, have made similar conclusions about similar examples, and that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong. Maybe it is a PR opportunity. But the problem is, there’s no discernible way to progress good thinking from such a statement. Unless you were in that boardroom, you can’t possibly know the motivation. The critical thinker, on the other hand, might question the motive. They ask, what proportion of the donations reach the people who need it? Is this charity actually doing good? Is it funding nefarious activities? If it’s all positives, maybe we should support it, regardless of what we believe about motivations.

Skepticism is crucial for good thinking. But it’s not about being cynical or waiting around until you’re presented with an idea that you already believe. It’s being cautious about what you accept as true and being willing and open-minded to differing perspectives and sufficient evidence when presented.