What is above scrutiny?

[SigurdReginson]

Is there anything on this earth or in heaven that is above scrutiny? Should it be? Why should we not question everything?

Is there even ever one time we shouldn't have doubts?

 

[ppp]

Is there anything on this earth or in heaven that is above scrutiny? Should it be? Why should we not question everything?

Is there even ever one time we shouldn't have doubts?

Question everything.

E V E R Y T H I N G !!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Sure, scrutinize or question everything. But when it comes down to it, in order to survive at all you're going to need to put your trust in something. And vastly more often than not, those things you put that level of trust into for your survival are going to be the things you can count on to consistently produce day in and day out.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Sure, scrutinize or question everything. But when it comes down to it, in order to survive at all you're going to need to put your trust in something. And vastly more often than not, those things you put that level of trust into for your survival are going to be the things you can count on to consistently produce day in and day out.

Very true, but is trust complete? Seems one should always look for a better way to achieve that goal, even if there is a tried and true method.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Even the system we use to evaluate reality (science) is a flawed system. It's a self correcting system (peer review), but it's still flawed.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Very true, but is trust complete? Seems one should always look for a better way to achieve that goal, even if there is a tried and true method.

True... but you're likely only going to make that move to a "better way" if it is just as reliable as the old method. Even if only because methods that are less reliable will most likely automatically be considered "worse." In other words, "trust" is a key element in considering anything as "good" in the first place. Whether the trust is "complete" in the way you're asking about or not, again I would nod to the idea that we have to trust in some things in order to survive at all. Put your trust where trust is due.

 

[ppp]

True... but you're likely only going to make that move to a "better way" if it is just as reliable as the old method. Even if only because methods that are less reliable will most likely automatically be considered "worse." In other words, "trust" is a key element in considering anything as "good" in the first place. Whether the trust is "complete" in the way you're asking about or not, again I would nod to the idea that we have to trust in some things in order to survive at all. Put your trust where trust is due.

[nod] Apportion your trust to the evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Scrutiny? Interesting etymology.

 

[exchemist]

Very true, but is trust complete? Seems one should always look for a better way to achieve that goal, even if there is a tried and true method.

I'm not sure about that. Pragmatically, given that humanity only has finite time and resources, it seems to me we should focus most on seeking to improve those things we find not entirely satisfactory and leave the rest for another day. However, given that humanity is composed of individuals all with different interests, experience and priorities, we inevitably move forward on a lot of fronts at once, in an irregular manner.

On the trust question we should not rust anything totally, perhaps, but there are many things we can trust enough not to bother challenging.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

[nod] Apportion your trust to the evidence.

That's why I trust some wine more than others.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think anything should be above intellectual scrutiny, but I would caution against treating the products of such scrutiny as if they are mirrors of nature. Instead, one should keep in mind the intrinsic uncertainty of almost all of our conclusions.

 

[ppp]

That's why I trust some wine more than others.

Mmmmmm. Wine.

 

[ppp]

I don't think anything should be above intellectual scrutiny, but I would caution against treating the products of such scrutiny as if they are mirrors of nature. Instead, one should keep in mind the intrinsic uncertainty of almost all of our conclusions.

Sure. Absolute certainty appears to be unattainable. Being without doubt is a red flag on any belief.

 

[Cooky]

I don't think anything should be above intellectual scrutiny, but I would caution against treating the products of such scrutiny as if they are mirrors of nature. Instead, one should keep in mind the intrinsic uncertainty of almost all of our conclusions.

That's wise.

 

[viole]

Is there anything on this earth or in heaven that is above scrutiny? Should it be? Why should we not question everything?

Is there even ever one time we shouldn't have doubts?

yes.

ciao

- viole

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sure. Absolute certainty appears to be unattainable. Being without doubt is a red flag on any belief.

Are you absolutely sure about this?

 

[ppp]

Are you absolutely sure about this?

Nope.

 

[SigurdReginson]

True... but you're likely only going to make that move to a "better way" if it is just as reliable as the old method. Even if only because methods that are less reliable will most likely automatically be considered "worse." In other words, "trust" is a key element in considering anything as "good" in the first place. Whether the trust is "complete" in the way you're asking about or not, again I would nod to the idea that we have to trust in some things in order to survive at all. Put your trust where trust is due.

I don't know if the new method necessarily needs to be more reliable as the first- just more efficient. The first firearms were incredibly unreliable vs. bows. They served a function, though. Nowadays firearms are far more efficient. Same with electric lights vs. lantern. I feel electrical energy vs. Biofuel powered things will be the same as well.

Point is, there seems to be a pivotal point of risk vs. efficacy. Almost seems like faith fills the void between risk and reward in a lot of cases.

 

[Altfish]

Even the system we use to evaluate reality (science) is a flawed system. It's a self correcting system (peer review), but it's still flawed.

That's quite a statement. How would you improve it?

 

[ppp]

That's quite a statement.

Seems like a mundane statement to me. Scientists consider all of their conclusions to be tentative pending new or dis-confirming evidence.