If a runner can run faster than you, are you going to deny that? Then why can't people accept they have less knowledge than other people?
(I'm struggling with this question as I write this)
As I see conversations on this forum, I see a lot of problematic arguments and logical fallacies..
As I don't agree that 'authority' is a good argument, I can't say "just accept it, because I know it to be likely to be true"
I do however think not everybody has the same body of knowledge... And I do have the audacity to say I'm probably more knowledge-able about certain aspects than others.
Still, opinions of uninformed people are accepted as valid... or as an acceptance of freedom of speech.
I know that I don't like being wrong, certainly not the moment I get opposed (This is a psychological thing we are all prone to I guess).
Knowing that, how can people's opinions shift?
I think people need at least allow doubt of their on opinions in order to be able to change them.
Depending on the persons knowledge, it takes more or less time to convince the m with facts...
But we humans accept logical fallacies as arguments... and that impedes the problem of belief revision... So as a premise, we need to learn to recognize them as fallacies first before we can continue debates.
This takes time and effort, and we can't demand that of people (or can we?)
I think that one can start to make a personal paradigm shift by going through the Cartesian doubt, and building from that. (Unlearn what you have learned) Not to go to the conclusions of Descartes (which were false), but to come to the fundamental recognition that often you just don't know.
Being agnostic about anything is not a bad thing. It's completely natural.
But learning to know what you don't know (towards accepting your ignorance) is, in my opinion crucially under-valuated.
So I would like to have some suggestions concerning this topic.