Knowledge is one of the most important things a person can have. Knowledge that falling off a tall building could kill you, knowledge of which foods are poisonous, knowledge of where to find water, etc.
It’s important to know which information is true, and which isn’t. The problem with this is determining the truth of each piece of information. I’ve been asked many times (mostly by people without much knowledge) how I know that my understanding of the world is correct, and that the assertions of others are incorrect. Well, yes, one could empirically verify one’s assertions, but then he might be asked how the conclusions drawn from this process can be known to be true.
The obvious answer is that nobody can know with absolute certainty that their assertions are correct. Does this mean that nobody should believe anything, because even if they test it, they can’t be sure that it’s correct? No. Certainly one always has to consider the option that they may be wrong, but this doesn’t mean nothing can be said to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
The entire universe could be a figment of your imagination, but it also may not be. Everything you know could be wrong, but it could be right. This leaves a person to determine which information seems logical, meaning it’s compatible with what is known to be true beyond reasonable doubt. There are times when entire areas must be redefined, and this is part of the progression of knowledge, but this doesn’t mean that every idea warrants inquiry.
For instance, if it’s suggested that the entire universe was created less than 10,000 years ago, one can easily see from the available evidence that this is false, and need not become part of the mass of indoctrinated zombies who hold this belief, to know that it’s a steaming pile of horse shit.
So, have an open mind, but don’t fill it with nonsense.
Understanding Popper correctly (from my long ago studies) : Any theory can only be falsified but never be totally verified . Even mathematical proof for sufficient complex equations is impossible according to Gödel’s theorem.
Nevertheless, a scientific theory is the best we have – not yet falsified despite all attempts ; all testable predictions confirmed so far – ergo the currently best tool to describe the natural phenomena in question. As soon new evidence and facts roll in and are falsifying the theory it’s busted and a new hypothesis must be found to be tested against it’s altered predictions. This method worked so far best, provided us ALL we know, ALL modern technology up to fly humans to the moon.
Blind faith is just the opposite : trust whatever some ancient scripture or some self proclaimed guru/priest/apostle is claiming – without and usually against all evidence – and this is what flies airplanes into skyscrapers .
Yup, that's pretty much what i was getting at : D
"Everything you know could be wrong, but it could be right. This leaves a person to determine which information seems logical, meaning it’s compatible with what is known to be true beyond reasonable doubt." – i agree. there are too many people existing on blind faith. but if i follow your train of thought here…it would still lead to a person to have faith…in something or Someone. because ultimately…nothing could really be fully defined as true beyond reasonable doubt as you yourself stated…"The obvious answer is that nobody can know with absolute certainty that their assertions are correct"
I disagree. Something being true beyond reasonable doubt needs to be verified empirically and logically. Any belief based on faith rather than evidence can't be said to be true beyond reasonable doubt. Also, I never said that something could not be known to be true beyond reasonable doubt, I said that things can ONLY be known to be true beyond reasonable doubt.