> Isn’t it possible that there actually are some powerful political groups who have honest and good intentions and others which do not? There are people who ha

> Isn’t it possible that there actually are some powerful political groups who have honest and good intentions and others which do not? There are people who have bad values, and want things that are bad, yes. (Though generally they don't want them because they think they are bad.) > Isn’t that possible even if most people have a tendency to believe that their own groups are the good ones, and that belief is just as strong for each group? yes. > Is it impossible for me to believe my group’s intentions are honest and good, and you believe just as strongly that your group’s intentions are honest and good, but that only one of us is correct? I'm not sure what precisely you mean by intentions being "honest and good". If I believe that my intent is honest -- well, I suppose I could be fooling myself, thinking that some behavior of mine is "honest" by twisting the meaning of the word "honest" in my mind, while still intending to cause others to have a belief which I believe to be false. Also, by intentions being "good", do you mean that the things one intends are actually good things, or that the one intending them thinks them good for those they impact, and intends them for that reason? > Is knowledge nothing more than a feeling of certainty? Or is knowledge simply impossible? Knowledge is more than a feeling of certainty, yes. And, either knowledge, or something very similar to knowledge, is possible. For example, both of the beliefs quoted, are false. There may be related claims which are true, but neither of the claims, as stated, are. (I don't see the no true Scotsman aspect of either though?) The point isn't that different sides are equally correct. The point is demonstrating a kind of error that can be made, and giving an example on multiple sides makes it easier to understand. If one only gave examples of a type of error being made by the side the reader agrees with, there would be a danger of this being interpreted as simply an attack on the side the reader agrees with, and so the reader would be less likely to appreciate the point. On the other hand, if one only gave examples of the type of error being made by the side the reader disagrees with, while the reader may take a more positive view of what is being written, they are less likely to internalize the point as a kind of error that they, or others on their side, are prone to. For something to be a general type of error, the type of error should be one that can be made in multiple contexts/directions/ways. Then, to demonstrate that something is a general type of error, why not demonstrate that, by showing that it can be made in multiple contexts/directions/ways ? The point isn't nihilism or relativism. The point is vigilance.