> > Question everything, and assume nothing. That way
> > leads to objectivity.
>
> No, it doesn't. That way leads down the path
> travelled by Rene Descarte in the 1600s. What
> he came up with was "Cogito Ergo Sum" as the
> only undoubtable knowledge. You're not going
> to do much better than Descarte did trying this
> method, trust me.

If there is only one piece of undoubtable knowledge - and that is it - then most people in today's society place so much trust in what the scientific establishment says, that it might almost be called "strong belief" or "faith".

Descartes also said, "It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived." In saying so, he was referring to his own senses, through which he viewed the world. In a larger sense, in our society, we rely on our scientists to view the world for us, and to tell us what the nature of our reality is.

How many times has the scientific establishment been wrong in the past? More significantly, in how many ways are they wrong now? We just don't know. But it will be interesting to see what the future brings.

- Enigma