This is a legitimate question, and I'm not trying to set you up for a sort of "gotcha" response, I actually want to know; what would be a more reliable way of coming to be confident in beliefs than rational skepticism? My understanding was that the entire point of rational skepticism is not to fundamentally doubt everything, but to just double check, using critical thinking, the reliability of claims currently believed and claims proposed for belief. This seems like a foundationally effective toolset to increase confidence in beliefs across the board. However, it sounds like you're saying that applying such a blanket methodology is insufficient and/or not generalizable enough? If this is correct,
if you could please elaborate on what you think would be a more robust epistemological model, that would be great, thanks!
This is a legitimate question, and I'm not trying to set you up for a sort of "gotcha" response, I actually want to know; what would be a more reliable way of coming to be confident in beliefs than rational skepticism? My understanding was that the entire point of rational skepticism is not to fundamentally doubt everything, but to just double check, using critical thinking, the reliability of claims currently believed and claims proposed for belief. This seems like a foundationally effective toolset to increase confidence in beliefs across the board. However, it sounds like you're saying that applying such a blanket methodology is insufficient and/or not generalizable enough? If this is correct, if you could please elaborate on what you think would be a more robust epistemological model, that would be great, thanks!