The word skepticism would seem to have a negative connotation to most people. E.g.: “I don’t believe it.” Which, I’m afraid in our increasingly polarized world would only feed adversarialism and automatically trigger a defensive posture. I don’t presume to edit the ancient philosophers cited in this article but perhaps the better word to use today would be circumspection: “careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences.” This has a more positive connotation but yet accomplishes the same result: open-minded evaluation and balance.

Also, skepticism requires work. One has to research beyond what is presented. In our intellectually lazy internet world, this is unlikely to happen for the very reasons stated in this article. Circumspection, on the other hand, requires only an objective evaluation of what has been presented; circumspection seems to be a bit more proactive in seeking solutions, skepticism more confrontational.

Personally, I practice skepticism when presented facts, especially dubious ones. More often I practice circumspection putting myself in the position of advocating exactly what I do not, to clarify why I may be opposed to it. This has led me to constructive dialogues rather than hopeless arguments. Of course, I’ve never heard of the ancient Greek philosophy of Circumspection. Is it possible this subtle distinction was indicated but lost in translation?

Last point: A scientific theory is based upon the principle of falsifiability. The layperson simply assumes this means that the theory is not true, so the layperson is “skeptical” of science, to say the least. Perhaps discrete circumspection should be the preferred modern alternative to classic skepticism.

Unfortunately, neither is likely to prevail. And that, is pessimism.