It seems to me that the healthy heart of skepticism is accepting that I might be wrong, and you might be wrong, and while we may have to pragmatically accept things that are told to us (my mechanic, who knows far more about cars than I do, assures me my car is unlikely to burst into flames spontaneously), we shouldn't mistake that authoritative likelihood with certainty.
In a sense, a true skeptic would be more humble than any saint. #ddtb (via +Scott Randel)
Embedded Link
Skepticblog » Russell’s Hedgehogs and Hirst’s Shark
Daniel Loxton reflects on the practical challenges of accurate skeptical scholarship—and considers some issues of deeper philosophical uncertainty.
38 view(s)
The downside of this, for me anyway, is that it can be hard to make decisions. Knowing that “I might be wrong, and you might be wrong” makes it difficult for me to quickly pick an option as “most nearly correct.” The more willing you are to accept certain statements as absolutely true, the less likely you are to suffer from decision paralysis.
That’s why I said you have to make pragmatic compromises — and sometimes you have to bear in mind Teddy Roosevelt’s maxim: “In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing at all.”