That’s interesting, you have a good point about what the purpose of debate is. But I feel like never being sure about the truth means we can’t make any kind of assessments or conclusions about anything, when it also seems like we have to in order to live our lives in the absence of 100% knowing something definitively. I also think some things can be known to be objectively true, such as the number of people inside a building (as an example).
For instance, if we’ve been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true or most likely true, but a person is arguing with us that it’s not (you might say “arguing that black is white”), we can be open to being proven wrong despite doubting that it will happen, but should we really not pursue a line of dialogue just because we think we’re probably correct?
I can see how saying I know what the truth is might turn people off more than just conversing about it, so I probably wouldn’t say that to them, but is being fairly confident in what you’re saying a reason not to say it?
Or alternatively, in a situation where you are almost entirely sure of your correctness (though still open to being corrected), and want to (or are forced to) prove to someone that you’re right to achieve a necessary end, would trying to do that still be inadvisable? Should we act like we are less certain/know less than we do to make them more receptive perhaps?
There has been one constant in my life: the older I get the more I understand that few things are objectively true/scientifically proven and (while I do hope that number grows) the more I realize the importance of being comfortable with uncertainty. Not only uncertainty about particular facts, but about my positions on stuff being right.
That’s interesting, you have a good point about what the purpose of debate is. But I feel like never being sure about the truth means we can’t make any kind of assessments or conclusions about anything, when it also seems like we have to in order to live our lives in the absence of 100% knowing something definitively. I also think some things can be known to be objectively true, such as the number of people inside a building (as an example).
For instance, if we’ve been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true or most likely true, but a person is arguing with us that it’s not (you might say “arguing that black is white”), we can be open to being proven wrong despite doubting that it will happen, but should we really not pursue a line of dialogue just because we think we’re probably correct?
I can see how saying I know what the truth is might turn people off more than just conversing about it, so I probably wouldn’t say that to them, but is being fairly confident in what you’re saying a reason not to say it?
Or alternatively, in a situation where you are almost entirely sure of your correctness (though still open to being corrected), and want to (or are forced to) prove to someone that you’re right to achieve a necessary end, would trying to do that still be inadvisable? Should we act like we are less certain/know less than we do to make them more receptive perhaps?
Thanks for your advice anyway ʘ‿ʘ
There has been one constant in my life: the older I get the more I understand that few things are objectively true/scientifically proven and (while I do hope that number grows) the more I realize the importance of being comfortable with uncertainty. Not only uncertainty about particular facts, but about my positions on stuff being right.