I think you two are collectively very close to describing “science”. It’s good to acknowledge what we don’t definitively know, but generating testable hypothesi

I think you two are collectively very close to describing “science”. It’s good to acknowledge what we don’t definitively know, but generating testable hypothesis or theories based on experiences and known phenomena is an important step. There are topics we don’t know the truth on, so we have to theorize. For instance, dark matter, or origins of Covid, or evolution, even. We could throw our hands in the air and say “we don’t know anything”, but part of coming into knowledge is taking an educated guess on the answer, testing it, and being right or wrong. From there, we recalibrate. The problem comes when people dogmatically defend their old, disproven hypotheses in the face of insurmountable evidence. Not situations where people have valid critiques or are skeptical, but situations which are pretty open-and-shut. For instance, flat earth has always seemed to me to be a very obviously wrong theory.