Often I have to try to explain to someone that while I am a skeptic - that is, I doubt claims that aren’t backed up by proper evidence - I’m not a cynic, but it can be a fine line. After all, I do see claims that have been thoroughly discredited as appropriate targets for ridicule. For example, you wouldn’t catch me wasting more than a little time on subjects such as homeopathy; it seems to me that if you still wave that banner then you’re either deluded or dishonest and I’m confident enough in that so that I feel free to ridicule with impunity.
On the other hand, what really distinguishes the skeptic from the cynic is the willingness to be shown to be wrong. Cynics don’t need to have looked at the evidence, they consider themselves the ultimate arbiter of what is bullshit and will assert it with a smug air of self-congratulation. They are more interested in feeling superior than chasing the truth.
It’s not like I can blame them, entirely. Cynicism is a very good survival tactic, so on the grounds of self-preservation it’s actually pretty rational. If someone punches you then beckons you over the next day and promises not to hurt you, it may well pay to be cynical about their motives. Your face will remain intact but, crucially, you’re never going to learn anything.
The skeptic would have similar doubts about their safety but, willing to be proven wrong, still go to investigate - and possibly get punched. But they might also get a result they didn’t expect. Even they will keep their distance after a week of constant face-punches, but they do so because they made the effort to learn, not because they claim they already knew.
So, cynics, I say to you: stop it. You don’t know how the world works, you’re not wise to the ways of people and you definitely don’t know how you’d set things right if you were in charge. Like the rest of us, you’re a child in a frighteningly large and baffling playground, so go out, have fun and don’t be afraid to scrape your knees every so often.
