Thanks to u/v8power for the excellent suggestion!
It's a tricky topic!
This is 1 of 2 round tables this time, due to a tie.
Thanks to everyone who made suggestions or voted!
Thanks to u/v8power for the excellent suggestion!
It's a tricky topic!
This is 1 of 2 round tables this time, due to a tie.
Thanks to everyone who made suggestions or voted!
You can't; the whole way we handle info should be changed.
One can estimate odds, based on reasons, and if these reasons are compelling, accept it as most possible (and so too when you get shared something, same process)
For example i can see your nickname as the poster, but i don't know if you were kidnapped and your account stolen.
Ok, some close infos like "yeah that's the account" i can be able to confirm, but nothing really relevant can be sure 100%.
If a dam falls tonight and all medias talk about it, there is still a little chance it's a psy op. Or if you are witnessing it, that you have been drugged hard.
I think the better question would be "how do we judge probabilities on a given info being true?" for example the above dam example, has a good chance, i'd say 99.999% of being true. But that doesn't make it certain.
"certainty" is an heuristical term for "my estimated probability for this is so high that i'm willing to bet some or all of my credibility in stating it as fact."
Cross checking, coherence with prior knowledge deemed extremely probable, logical pertinence, instinct and intuition sometimes.
Isn’t that literally Dunning Kruger? Believing things because they agree with things you already believe? Following ‘instinct and intuition’ is a terrible way to determine veracity, as everyone instinctively wants to believe things that agree with them, and wants to not believe things that disagree with them.
Does it make more sense to you to agree with things because they disagree with things you already believe? Btw, that isn't dunning kruger (check wiki, you may be confused). That is simple logic. And it's not about belief, it's about odds. Take your point and reverse it, find if what you "believe" make sense to be discarded when judging new thoughts.
If what you already believe isn't a basis for judgement, why would new beliefs be? If you weren't capable of thinking until today, what makes you believe now you started for real?
I think therefore i am; i believe, and i judge according to my beliefs. The belief not to have to judge info based on old beliefs? that's an old belief you got, dude. Circular logic. Word salad.
Examples would be abound, but frankly i think the logic itself you stated is quite evidently not sound on a minimal reasoning.
As for intuition and instinct, i suppose it depends on your own experience with it. If . you are never right you will refuse it, if you often hit you will tend to go with it unless something seems off. As long as you are able to challenge/modify your results based on new evidence, there is no problem in having a working hypothesis by those sources.
Literally most scientific discovery is made by people who had a thought by intuition and went on to test it.
The catapult inventor is said to have dreamed of it a night and then reverse engineered his dream.
Disregarding our natural sense of "getting it" is stupid imo. Has always been the best starter for discovery.