> Rarely do I get any agreement on these ideas, so many thanks for that.
> Unsurprisingly, I am interested in some clarification:

>> If I put a disclaimer in front of everything I state (when I perceive the I talk about to always be some form of a hypothesis based on the data that I currently have), it tends to slow down discourse and get very messy.

> The domain of science typically involves overwhelming (in a text conversation scenario) amounts of complexity as well....but they realized the problem, found a way to manage it, and went on to produce amazing results. Unfortunately, science does not have mastery over all of reality (confident claims and perceptions to the contrary notwithstanding). Perhaps something similar could be done in other domains.

I think using science here was an exceptional example. It's good to note that the scientific process itself has evolved over time. I don't have all the answers, but I'm happy to re-analyze and adjust my processes given new data

> As it is, it seems to me that thinking on top of approximations of reality that are perceived as reality itself is sub-optimal, and dangerous. I think most people could appreciate this in the case of science, but in other domains it is very often considered absurd.

I can agree with that in part. Ideas must come from somewhere though. Sometimes that source is abstract and we don't understand all of the various linkages/connections; sometimes it's a known source and we understand in part all the things they are connected to. I think it's important to enable discourse and "thinking out loud" by labelling/tagging things as such.

>> In my mind, because I've already accepted the potential for bad data-- that's how I approach others works/papers.

>"In my mind" - watch out! :)

I'm comfortable with having my ideas challenged because I'm open to revising them. I should probably change this to 'my methodology is' or something more distinct. Merely attempting to convey here that I (try) to use a conscious approach when approaching others works. And I attempt to challenge myself regarding my own ideas on a regular basis.

> Disagree - if one has decent skills in set theory, abstraction/decomposition, and tautological framing of ideas, it is not difficult at all to achieve absolute (but vague/non-comprehensive) truth. That's not the finish line, but you can get WAY further down the track than someone who does not have such abilities.

I would argue that's not an absolute ;)
But instead, I think both of our points, the important thing to identify is that it's not the finish line. It can be modified or adjusted or simply re-analyzed given new data.

Society seems to tend to think of ideas as a binary when there are often various levels of maturity involved. What's important to me in this instance is that the product isn't labelled as final. Change is a constant, even if things don't change directly, our information about them and perception of them do, which requires re-evaluating things often. Science is great at doing this, people (in general) are not. I think that many people would benefit from approaching things in a more scientific and/or philosophical fashion.

> I understand your concerns around this (and at least from my current understanding of our social/political issues) and I agree. It is extremely dangerous and detrimental to hold beliefs like that.

> And as far as I can tell: this is the methodology of the vast majority (90%+++) of people....and some of these are The Literal Experts, or people who believe they know The Way humanity needs to go to solve climate change. What could go wrong!!??

Expert is a dangerous word. An expert to me is someone that can adapt a methodology/approach. Not dogmatic follow something. I'd argue that for someone to be an expert in their field, they need to be able to understand and account for incoming data. I'd agree with you on that point. Many experts spout dogma, sometimes we're just lucky/unlucky that they aren't spouting the dogma we agree with.

I appreciate the discourse!