The philosophy of refusing to come to a conclusion is called skeptcism. The word skeptic comes from the Greek to examine.
While I understand the need to make decisions, I’m not so sure that it should trump the desire to not accept answers (keep looking).
As has been pointed out in earlier posts, once a decision is made it often is hard to dislodge.
For example, many people today accept neo-Darwinism as an answer to evolution. Yet the evidence from biology would indicate that neo-Darwinism is either false or incomplete. (Try dislodging that one)
So while I agree that one often has to make decisions quickly based on incomplete and conflicting evidence, I don’t think the question you posed in ‘torture vs. dust specks’ was framed in such a way as to demand that type of decision.
By the way, someone who has made up their mind about religion or the existence of para-psychological phenomena is not a skeptic in the historical meaning of the word.
The philosophy of refusing to come to a conclusion is called skeptcism. The word skeptic comes from the Greek to examine. While I understand the need to make decisions, I’m not so sure that it should trump the desire to not accept answers (keep looking). As has been pointed out in earlier posts, once a decision is made it often is hard to dislodge. For example, many people today accept neo-Darwinism as an answer to evolution. Yet the evidence from biology would indicate that neo-Darwinism is either false or incomplete. (Try dislodging that one) So while I agree that one often has to make decisions quickly based on incomplete and conflicting evidence, I don’t think the question you posed in ‘torture vs. dust specks’ was framed in such a way as to demand that type of decision.
By the way, someone who has made up their mind about religion or the existence of para-psychological phenomena is not a skeptic in the historical meaning of the word.