Believing you know is fundamentally equivalent to delusion.
In the real world it’s not, but fundamentally it is. The way I see it, choosing a certain amount of evidence to be convinced by is acceptance of this.
The problem with convincing evidence is not the usefulness of it, that’s the pragmatic argument, but the fact that if we took away one nugget of evidence, would you still believe?
Truth exists on a multidimensional gradient. You may be able to call one statement more truthful than another, but to say that ITSELF depends on your definition of truthfulness.
> Definitions are ultimately arbitrary.
>> Morality is based upon definitions.
>>> Morality is ultimately arbitrary.
>>>> Therefore morality is based on individual preferences, not external truths.
Just because someone believes in absolute doubt doesn’t mean if they are set on fire they’d do nothing and say “Oh, well, I might just be dreaming all this, so whatever.”
Unbelief doesn’t equate to non-action. It equates to the recognition that if the definitions themselves should be useful, then morality is based upon goals that are picked by individuals, not some external Truth inherent in the structure of reality.
“Definitions are neither true nor false; they’re useful or useless.”
— Stuart Kauffman
Reject beliefs that are holding you back from success.