You can’t afford to scrutinise all claims, so what proportion of your world model do you think are claims by experts you’ve simply accepted?
- 2 months ago
"Accepted" is the wrong term. "Conditionally acknowledged" is closer to the truth. And I'd say 20%.
- PLv 72 months ago
None at all. Society can't afford not to scrutinise all claims, especially now
- Anonymous2 months ago
Knowing the proportion I or we accept cannot really help you. Recognizing the proportion that YOU accept would be more useful to you.
- ♜Ⓢⓚⓨ ❍ Ⓓⓞⓥⓔ ♜Lv 52 months ago
I think an evolving mind will refine their model and even gain an intuition for the kinds of things that should exist. There will be countless internal battles between dominant arrangements of your mind. Maybe for a time you will be ruled by passion and another time by intellect. And there may be many further rival opponents. But I think this is a healthy mechanism which prevents fruitless rulership. After many wars of the mind it becomes possible to integrate various sides into something more powerful and solid. The mind evolves in great intricacy as it’s threads become woven. It becomes a better instrument.
It is only a matter of finding a place for each part of you such that every part forms a greater whole.
At some point I think the parts fall away and you just have pure mind. Something that is hard to define. Perhaps it can be described as each thought being a perfect balance of many ingredients. It may be different each time but each time it sums up to a pure thought.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- jehenLv 72 months ago
Accepting assertions from trusted sources that are in agreement with most other trusted sources is usually correct. Understanding biases, especially for minority claims, assertions and opinions is also key, but that is not always possible. But if a tobacco executive asserts smoking is not harmful, or produces a scientist that says so, I will dismiss the source, especially in the light of the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus. If a fossil fuel lobbyist asserts there is no global warming due to human induced CO2 emissions or produces a scientist to say so, I will dismiss that assertion in the light of overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus.