I don’t necessarily spend a lot of time doubting what I heard - its just a natural frame of mind in which I do not take things for granted as truths, believe. I act on things knowing I may be wrong about my perception, or other intentions, etc.
I would say I know when I have evaluated something “well” (well to my standard of what well is I suppose) - and I know my evaluation. Until knowledge occurs I do have inherent doubt about my interpretations of people say.
I doubt everything I can, even knowledge. But knowledge I can’t get anywhere with doubting aside from say, other aspects of the thing I know. So, by doubting 1+1=2, I usually go into the absolute conditions of 1+1=2 and how that would be 1+1 =11 in binary, or so. But that’s not really what I mean in my mind by 1+1=2. I’ve come to bring up hypotheticals that 1+1=2 may not mean 1+1=2 in alternate realities with alternate rules of physics, and fathomed the implications.
Well, yes.
I never claimed I really did “always doubt”. I was a man of belief in my past. A man of religion. Now days, I am a man of doubt.
It’s not as intensive as that. Like I said it is ingrained in so much as it is second nature. She might say, for example “Can you pass the salt”. Well of course, yes I can pass the salt, anything else that you want to know what I can do? So of course there is a quick processing of things like metaphors, jokes, perhaps she’s asking for a salty tear from me. Conversation at our dinner table can be… interesting perhaps. Language can be very ambiguous.
http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190052
Well I don’t think its that bad. Take everything with a grain of salt
I know of my memory or have doubts of my memory. I don’t have to doubt it every time. Can memories not be knowledge?
It’s not that I have to verify everything. It’s just that I remain agnostic about it. I fathom the possibilities of if its true. Usually I end up researching things when I read articles afterwords.
I think that’s a very complex issue - so past methods that have been “proven”, such as math and logical conclusions aren’t necessarily doubted, because its knowledge. But the conclusions can be, regardless of the means. You’ll have to be specific I would say in your hypothetical.
There’s opinion, there’s unknown truths, there’s known truths, the rest is agnostic. Opinions are true to ones values, or they aren’t really an opinion.
Why should there be overlap, I’m still asking what the reason is for there to be belief as a necessary component of a human mind?
I find allusions to argument from incredulity in the criticism here, but no reasons why it must be the case that I have a belief.
“Doubt the conventional wisdom unless you can verify it with reason and experiment.” Steve Albini
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” Bertrand Russell
If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." Rene Descartes