I think that I got the point, “I know that I know nothing” is a well known quote.
It’s actually a somewhat different point he’s trying to make (it’s spaced out over several blogposts) - the idea is not to say “all knowledge is fallible.” You should be very confident in math proofs that have been well vetted. It’s useful to have a sense of how certain your knowledge is. (like, could you make 100 similar statements without being wrong once? 1,000? 10,000?)
(i.e. “the sun will rise tomorrow” is a probability, not a certainty, and “Ghosts could be real” is a probability, not a certainty, but they are very different probabilities.)
If you’re interested, I do recommend the sequences in more detail—a lot of their points build on each other. (For example, there are multiple other posts that argue about what it’s useful to think in probabilities, and how to apply that to other things).
It’s actually a somewhat different point he’s trying to make (it’s spaced out over several blogposts) - the idea is not to say “all knowledge is fallible.” You should be very confident in math proofs that have been well vetted. It’s useful to have a sense of how certain your knowledge is. (like, could you make 100 similar statements without being wrong once? 1,000? 10,000?)
(i.e. “the sun will rise tomorrow” is a probability, not a certainty, and “Ghosts could be real” is a probability, not a certainty, but they are very different probabilities.)
If you’re interested, I do recommend the sequences in more detail—a lot of their points build on each other. (For example, there are multiple other posts that argue about what it’s useful to think in probabilities, and how to apply that to other things).