notes-cog-rationality-iDontKnow

Often our refusal to take a stand on important questions has more to do with our own awareness of our lack of reliable information than with laziness.

i imagine that at some distant time in the past, it was not allowed to answer "i don't know"; by 'not allowed', i don't mean you would be considered rude, i just mean that if someone else had an answer, and you said 'i don't know', then the other person's answer would be believed.

Socrates supposedly said, "the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing," so you'd think saying 'i don't know' would be ok by now, but i think the modern world is still in transition.

for example, in arguments, i have been pressed by other people to accept their point of view merely because i was provided with counterarguments to some arguments of the opposing point of view. i attempted to insist that this merely leaves me in a position of being unconvinced by either side, but this didn't go over so well.

the people claimed that i should accept their side because their position had been demonstrated "conclusively". my opinion is that, except in questions of logic/mathematics, where conclusiveness is clear, people often err in thinking that an argument is more conclusive than it really is. i'm not saying that there are no arguments outside of pure logic that i think are conclusive, but i am saying that in such discussions, "i don't know" should be the default position, and the burden of proof should always be on the parties claiming that they know; there should be no burden upon the person who makes no claim to know to demonstrate the IN-conclusivity of non-purely-logical arguments.