I'm saying people are relaying information as if it was true and that they had verified it, when they haven't. Its hearsay, gossip. Or even, lying.
I don't say check every case. That's impossible.
I'm saying be a bit clearer about what you know and what you believe. Don't say 'I know' when you haven't verified whatever it is. To say you do, is in fact, a type of lie. You are simply re-stating what you have been told was true. The effect is that you may deceive others. Why should they be deceived because your threshold is to trust whatever is being presented to you as true? You don't know, but you say you do.
If you like, I can deconstruct this a little more. It hinges on the verb 'to be', 'is'.
Contrast these statements:
"The earth is a sphere".
"The evidence that I have seen indicates that the earth is a sphere".
The first statement is not verifiable personally. It is parroting a line, and is a very common linguistic shortcut. The effect is a form of lie, where you are overstating the case of what you know.
The second statement far more accurately reflects what I at least know.
Sure, prepend all your sentences by "The evidence that I have seen indicates" if it makes you happy. It changes nothing about the fact that knowledge exists even if you can personally experience it using solely your senses. I know that we've been to the Moon (do you?) although I wasn't even born when this happened.
Knowledge is certain. If there is a possibility that some claim could be wrong, it is only a hypothesis. And that's perfectly fine. Call that knowledge if you like, but you are over-stating your case. Lying in fact.
The reality is that we have far less knowledge than we think. We may be aware of lots of hypotheses, we can have knowledge of hypotheses. But this is not knowledge of the thing being hypothesised about.
You think you have knowledge when you don't. And I say, if you are unaware of your ignorance, and in fact erroneously believe yourself to be knowledgeable, you are in a state worse than ignorance. You only have beliefs, but you think they are knowledge. This is to say, you are guilty of magical thinking. And that is the essence of religion.
Hence why I say, religion and science are the same thing at core - its all belief. Adherents to each believe they have knowledge, but this belief is without proof. In a way scientists are worse as they are convinced they do have the truth, and are determined to righteously inflict their truths on everyone else! They are far from humble. Its pretty irritating!
I'm saying people are relaying information as if it was true and that they had verified it, when they haven't. Its hearsay, gossip. Or even, lying.
I don't say check every case. That's impossible.
I'm saying be a bit clearer about what you know and what you believe. Don't say 'I know' when you haven't verified whatever it is. To say you do, is in fact, a type of lie. You are simply re-stating what you have been told was true. The effect is that you may deceive others. Why should they be deceived because your threshold is to trust whatever is being presented to you as true? You don't know, but you say you do.
If you like, I can deconstruct this a little more. It hinges on the verb 'to be', 'is'.
Contrast these statements:
"The earth is a sphere".
"The evidence that I have seen indicates that the earth is a sphere".
The first statement is not verifiable personally. It is parroting a line, and is a very common linguistic shortcut. The effect is a form of lie, where you are overstating the case of what you know.
The second statement far more accurately reflects what I at least know.