Skepticism, interpretation and investigation

Pete (an avowed skeptic): To be a skeptic we must first renounce all reliance on authority. From early childhood we were conditioned to accept the authority of our parents. We knew nothing; they knew all we needed to know. It was a good thing that we accepted their guidance. It was a good thing we trusted our teachers, as well. But this created a feeling that others know best. An attitude of dependency and gullibility, most never outgrow, and so they trust their government officials, their preachers, the media, and their friends to tell them how to live.Ok, maybe, we here, are past that stage, but still authority is there ensconced in our minds as ideas we never question. It's the habit of questioning all your thoughts, of accepting nothing at first sight that creates that sixth sense which rings a bell, and alert us to look again. After all, when at the fruit market we don't grab just the fruit which lies on top of the pile and put it in our bag. No, we look it up and down, we turned it around, we give it a squeeze. If we took as much care with ideas, that sixth sense would be there to lead us where ideas are no longer fences, but just temporary wings.

Randy: Cynicism is distracting and skepticism should never be practiced towards one's own direct experience.

Pete: Correct! Only toward interpretations of such experiences. But.... whatever you, or anyone else, thinks, speaks or writes is an interpretation.

Wim: That may very well be, but whatever someone originally conveys of an experience is in the first instance a description of what the sensorial faculties report to the experiencer. Such a description is not necessarily an interpretation right off the bat.
It is more often the listener who interprets the speaker's experience when the listener attempts to make sense of the speaker's conveyed experience, especially when the description of that experience does not exactly translate into something the listener can relate to or has experienced him/herself.
However, what is conveyed originally can also quickly become an interpretation by the original speaker, especially when he/she feels not being understood or feels that what is conveyed is not being validated... This may now cause the speaker to augment his/her experience with interpretive descriptions to win over the misunderstanding, skeptical or disapproving listener.

It may be interesting to find out how the word 'interpretation' is to be interpreted. :)))

The word 'interpretation' derives from the Latin 'inter' (amongst, between) and 'prattein' (Greek for speaking, ME prate, DU praten, E prattle).

Interpretation originally had to do with language translation. Later it received the meaning of conveying a particular version or explanation of a notion, act or piece of work. The meaning of a teaching method also developed, e.g. an interpretive nature program.

Over time 'an interpretation' also came to mean 'someone's take or even slant on things'.

Initially inter-pretation was done by 'agents' who conveyed messages between between peoples of a different tongue. 'Inter-prete' originally meant to convey translated messages.
When such a translation is done well, there is of course nothing left to 'interpretation'... the 'slant' meaning :))

But back to Pete's remarks on skepticism.
I don't think that one has to be cynical or skeptical in one's attempts to truthfully understand any issue. Cynicism and skepticism often merely reflects how cynics or skeptics themselves were treated by their peers...
The cynic or skeptic may just be passing along a certain mode of mildly derisive behavior that has nothing much to do with inspection, investigation and inquiry to... reach clarity.