What does it really mean to be Skeptical?...Can Skepticism be defined more specifically in an age (in my opinion) where its usage been overly abused?...Is Skepticism really just something logical and scientific based in an evaluation of claims that are made or is it used more or less as an conclusive judgement as well?...
This question is deeply significant and pertinent to everyone on Earth who wants to think clearly and thereby reach logical conclusions regarding the truth of any subject.
And that’s why I fight so vigorously against the people who are trying to redefine the meaning of “skepticism” to suit their own personal agendas – the people we call “pseudoskeptics.”
Skepticism is not a stance; it’s a methodology.
And it’s a very simple methodology. It goes like this:
1.) collect all of the relevant data on a subject.
2.) cull that data until only the credible data remains.
3.) weigh that data against the data set that one should reasonably expect to find.
4.) dispassionately let the culled data speak for itself.
Note that the methodology of skepticism is not adversarial in nature; it’s impartial. This is a crucial distinction that sets it apart from the scientific method, which is adversarial. The scientific method is applied to scientific theories and data analysis. Then that data and scientific knowledge is used in the skeptical method to arrive at an unbiased conclusion (which is always contingent upon the arrival of new data).
So when people call themselves “skeptics” and imply that this means “taking a hostile stance to all new claims or data,” they’re abusing and redefining the term “skepticism.” The adversarial process belongs to the scientific method, not the method of skepticism. But the people in the pseudoskeptic community generally aren’t scientists, and they can’t call themselves scientists without getting called out, so they’ve tried to hijack the term “skeptic” instead because that allows them to sidestep the problem of scientific qualifications.
A true “skeptic” is somebody that doesn’t care what the truth is; they only care about finding the truth regardless of its nature or controversiality. A true skeptic is neither a believer nor a disbeliever: both of those positions poison the well of logical analytical reasoning.
The pseudoskeptics, on the other hand, start with a conclusion and then try to work backward to rationalize their preconceived worldview. This is the antithesis of the skeptical method, which demands a completely open mind from the outset so the data can speak clearly for itself without letting cherry-picking or other logical fallacies contaminate the reasoning process.
In many cases, the available data is insufficient to form a reasonable conclusion. Skeptics are fine with that: uncertainty is a perfectly reasonable position about many things in life; often more time is needed for more conclusive data to arrive. So a hallmark of a biased mind is found when hasty conclusions are drawn from insufficient data: both believers and disbelievers constantly fall prey to confirmation bias. That's generally the quickest way to identify a biased and irrational mind - they've made conclusions that aren't adequately supported by the available data.