>>12617995>didn't say "I have proven and know things I do not know", I saidSkimmed your post, didn't bother to read to the end. In short, yes you did. You say otherwise now because you know it's what you're supposed to say to seem credible and legitimate, but in truth, it simply is the way you think.
Let's review truth relative to the burden of proof in a layered model.
Person A and B are talking.
Person A makes a claim.
Person B says you are wrong, that's not true.
The burden of proof is now shared by person B. If he wants no part in the notion of truth, he must only say something like "I don't know, but I don't think so." If person B makes a claim of his own about reality, he must back it up. He cannot use the null hypothesis to have a magic freebie of Truth from the unverse. He doesn't know the truth either and he should remember that.
The only solution is for them both to come together and find the truth. Unfortunately person B usually has a fragile ego and is a total ideologue, so he instead dresses himself in the garb of the era and tries to exert social pressure to simply dismiss any indication of his ignorance.
Period. Pretty simple. Some people want to know, some people want to feel they know what they want to know they know. Not much to be said about it. You a mistake and now you're squirming and trying to double down.
Admit it so we can both move on to a brighter future.
