Skepticism and Critical Thinking

Skepticism is a survival skill. That said, I'd be happy to be wrong in this case!

Your understanding is flawed, because people with relevant knowledge are pointing out truth and you’re asking for more and more. You are not trying to find truth, you’re trying to argue.Yes, people can claim stuff that they know and nobody else can prove. Not every idea requires a double blind study with a large sample size. Sometimes you take things and assign probability values. “This guy sounded like he knew what he was talking about”Sometimes that’s all you ever get. You should be than

When you "consume" a new piece of information you have are three options: verify it yourself, believe without proof or dismiss it without proof.The problem is that some claims are hard to verify so you immediately have to believe or dismiss the claim without proof. However, when you receive new information it is possible to change your stance on unproven claims. Over time you develop a network of claims that strengthen each other. This makes you less susceptible to obviously wrong i

Assume you are wrong about whatever it is you are thinking. Assume everyone else is wrong too. Double check, triple check, and when you think you have reached fullest confidence, you should still only provisionally accept your belief, knowing that you are still most likely wrong.

I'd like to first try to summarize the thesis of your comment so that you can understand my conception of what I’m arguing against and correct me if I misread you.I think you're saying that since humans have limited capacity for time, attention, and learning, and since there is so much information and claims out there in the world, we all naturally have to rely on what you call trust or credibility heuristics in order to determine what we will accept as truth and what we will reject

I think Julia Galef's "scout mentality" can be helpful here. Try to be aware of your biases - do you want this to be true? - and if so, be extra sceptical. Try to consider the possibility of the opposite of what you think being true - what would that look like? And try to assign percentages to your beliefs, instead of booleans. Be prepared to update your views over time as more facts emerge.

If you tell me how something works and it fits within my mental model of the world then I will trust you. I will add this information to my mental model of the world.If you tell me something works but can't explain how I will consider if the claim is worth evaluating then attempt to understand it myself before accepting it.If you tell me to trust you with no explanation I will immediately distrust you.

Ignorance of counter-evidence is not truth.

I think we can rely on peoples' own smarts to build in that skepticism. There's not a lot of benefit to qualifying every piece of information to say that it might be wrong.

You say the author must be wrong because of lack of compelling evidence, and then you propose the opposite without any evidence. Why does it have to be confirmed either way? Why can't you admit you just don't know?It seems to me that by going into things with the idea that you know something that you don't is just limiting your own ability to discover new information about it. Reality is a complicated landscape. By simplifying every question into a predefined yes or no, you are