Constantly, we, or at least I, deal with those who are sure
of something, usually of themselves generally. Of course, this lets
them get through each problematic day with an assurance that the world,
indeed the cosmos, is as they know it to be. That there are
millions of published papers
dealing with new insights into matters of science and of ourselves
as individuals and groups, concerns them not.
They know, and that is that!
The crux, or crutch, of all this is that if they recognized that
nobody knows very much -- in light of all these published
papers -- then the proper position would be "tell me more".
Only those who are secure in the sometimes hard-won awareness
of their partial-knowledge / partial-ignorance condition,
can relax in the security that they do not know, and therefore
can learn.
To me, the question is: Why can't we be content with our very
obvious inadequacies? We accept that foxes,
cows, ants, elephants,
and so on, cannot know everything, so why not accept that neither
can we?
The risk, no, the fate of someone who "knows" all is disaster
when it inevitably turns out that he/she does not.
I could rest my case, and I think I will.
