It seems to be a universal phenomenon that as people get older, they tend to become more conservative in their thinking. I have noticed this somewhat with myself as well. Although I still wouldn’t call myself a conservative, I have definitely become more receptive to some conservative ideas as I grew older. Something interesting that I realized was that this shift towards more conservative philosophies is accompanied by an increase in skepticism. This got me thinking, are the two somehow related? Does skepticism naturally favor, or tilt towards, conservatism?

At first glance, skepticism, when applied fairly at least, should be relatively neutral. Just as we should be skeptical about new, liberal reforms, we should be equally skeptical about the forces that help keep the existing status quo. Skeptics are doubtful of the supposed impacts of brand new policies, while simultaneously questioning the effectiveness of the current system and state of affairs. The scrutiny of skepticism is laid upon all narratives, regardless of where they sit on the philosophical or political spectrum.

But at the core of skeptic thinking, there is something that shares more similarity with the fundamentals of conservatism. This is the idea that we actually don’t know much about anything, a sense of general agnosticism towards everything. A skeptic (perhaps a more radical one) believes that the world is so complex, our knowledge and ability so limited, that we can never be certain of anything. This is the fundamental doctrine that drives the forces of doubt for skeptics, and I think it is also one of the core elements at the center of conservatism.

Chesterton’s fence is often used to illustrate the reasoning of conservative thinking. It essentially states that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. In this lens, an extreme conservative who opposes all change can be thought of as a person who believes that we can never be certain that we understand the reasoning behind the status quo. More realistically, one can think of this principle at a meta level: our current process for dealing with issues (e.g. whether to take down certain “Chesterton fences” with reforms or leave them) seems to have worked well, and therefore should not be messed around with unless we can fully understand it.

Our permanent state of ignorance, relative to the complexities of the world, is what connects skepticism and conservatism. I think this is the reason that I felt the correlation between the two in my own thinking, i.e. the more skeptical I got, the more understanding I became towards conservative values. Despite this connection though, there is still a big difference between skepticism and conservatism. Unlike conservatism, skepticism does not offer any opinionated way of dealing with our ignorance. Conservatism on the other hand, does prescribe something very strongly, which is caution. Since we do not know much about anything, we should be careful of anything new, and for the most part, stick to the old ways that we have known to work. Another way to think of a conservative is a pessimistic skeptic.

So what about an optimistic skeptic? One who isn’t naive, who is very much aware of our ignorance, yet still dares to venture into the unknown to try something new. One who knows the limitations of our understanding, but also believes that we must push past the status quo for a better future. A true humble experimenter. It is of course much easier to describe than to be, but I genuinely do think that we need more people like this.