Please stop pretending to be wise. Your position is not some kind of neutral high-ground, but rather a definite judgement about truth, which has to be defended on its own merits, not just by pointing out the flaws in other viewpoints.
In other words, let’s assume we live in a world which operated under your principles, where everyone was radically skeptical of every claim, to the point of disbelieving even simply statements like, “The grass is green,” or “The sky is blue.” Would that world have a better understanding of reality than this one? Would that world’s maps correspond better to its territory? No. Everyone would be so caught up in their radical skepticism of everything that no one would be able to build upon each others’ knowledge.
My principles are not in disbelieving simple statements, but to see and articulate that these statements (especially not scientific ones) are not truth as many of people even here tend to believe.
My position is: I know that I don’t know a lot, much more than I know, and the more I live the bigger my knowledge and the bigger my ignorance. And I’m quite sure of my stance here.
This position of me is not preventing you from having your own, different position, as we can see by your comments.
And you, at the other hand, just told me to stop pretending to be wise.
And you, at the other hand, just told me to stop pretending to be wise.
Yes, because that’s what you’re doing. You’re pretending that because things are unknown to you, they are unknowable to everyone. You’re pretending that it’s impossible to know things about the world unless that knowledge meets some kind of impossibly high standard of scientific rigor. And you’re dressing it up by using high status words (in italics), to make it seem as if you’re enunciating some kind of deep insight.
Please stop pretending to be wise. Your position is not some kind of neutral high-ground, but rather a definite judgement about truth, which has to be defended on its own merits, not just by pointing out the flaws in other viewpoints.
In other words, let’s assume we live in a world which operated under your principles, where everyone was radically skeptical of every claim, to the point of disbelieving even simply statements like, “The grass is green,” or “The sky is blue.” Would that world have a better understanding of reality than this one? Would that world’s maps correspond better to its territory? No. Everyone would be so caught up in their radical skepticism of everything that no one would be able to build upon each others’ knowledge.
My principles are not in disbelieving simple statements, but to see and articulate that these statements (especially not scientific ones) are not truth as many of people even here tend to believe.
My position is: I know that I don’t know a lot, much more than I know, and the more I live the bigger my knowledge and the bigger my ignorance. And I’m quite sure of my stance here.
This position of me is not preventing you from having your own, different position, as we can see by your comments.
And you, at the other hand, just told me to stop pretending to be wise.
Yes, because that’s what you’re doing. You’re pretending that because things are unknown to you, they are unknowable to everyone. You’re pretending that it’s impossible to know things about the world unless that knowledge meets some kind of impossibly high standard of scientific rigor. And you’re dressing it up by using high status words (in italics), to make it seem as if you’re enunciating some kind of deep insight.
Remember that confusion and ignorance are properties of your own mind, not properties of the world. That is not the proper use of humility.