So they could hold beliefs which you think are nonsense but they don't prioritise them.
But in practice, truth claims do need to be significant to warrant scepticism and there is a consensus on what is significant.
-
-
If my friend says 'I went to the supermarket today,' there is no need to practice scepticism coz going to supermarket is ordinary.
-
We'd only need evidence that was what she did at the time she said she did it if, eg, she was accused of a crime somewhere else
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Who decides? Why do they never ask me?
-
There's a consensus. Only certain claims become significant. I doubt that you seriously think every shopping trip must be proved.
-
You'd only think this in relation to something else that was significant. And I'd understand why you required evidence to accept it
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.