I think it was Descartes who started this.

Every day we hear, see, or experience events and conditions about our world. It is just the basic reality of life. Mostly we get our non-personal information second-hand by those who convey it via the media-outlets of the times. What I find interesting is that there has always been disputes and disagreements about most issues. There are those on one side that "see" the events and conditions of the world one way and some others who find a different way to "see" the same thing. I find this interesting from two perspectives. First, there is the rational. Logically only one can be right, correct? That is the predominant take-away. Except, that isn't required by logic. Both cannot be right, generally true. But, it can be equally valid that neither needs to be right; or each can be a little right and a little in error. And, then there are what are all the other views that might be right or wrong. 

​

This brings me to the second perspective. I find it most informative to look at the view being presented, no matter which one it is, and see if it reflects the best view that anyone has offered so far. The starting point is to accept that the view being presented is "wrong" up front. If you accept it as true then it is harder or even impossible to see vulnerabilities or errors in what is stated or unstated as accurate.

I like to challenge the premise that we "know" what the truth is, that we know what the right answer is. If I fail in this assessment then I have a view that is as good as I can find, and if I find a flaw I have the chance to discover a better understanding.