[ComradePhil]

Slightly different perspective: facts are completely unimportant, because:

- what seems like a fact may not be a "fact" at all, it may be a misunderstanding

- knowing all the known facts may give you a false sense of understanding of the truth; one more fact can change your entire outlook... and yet one more can change that... you don't know the facts you don't know

If certain truths are probable, the facts known today (or perceived as knowable today) should not get in the way of exploring them.

Do not let any fact or a collection of facts get in the way of your exploration of the truth.

If one is extremely conservative, it may seem like a good idea to only stick to what is already known (i.e. the "facts") but even then, because of the fact that you can never be sure that everything there is to know is known at this time, one should still keep an open mind.

[defaultprimate]

You should read Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations.

You can be open to new evidence defining what objective truth is without dismissing the existence of objective truth due to unknown unknowns.

[ComradePhil]

I doubt I'll read it because I think it will bore me to death... knowing the fact what George Soros' "Open Society" comes from his work and judging from their actions, the whole doctrine seems to be against exploring potential truths in different ways and having a new form of monotheism which is strictly imposed on the entire world. I believe that is not only extremely dumb but also extremely dangerous. If it succeeds, I believe it will set back humanity by thousands of years, if not more. In the past, monotheistic religions have had limited control over the masses. They were limited to certain geo-political boundries, so the people outside of those could rescue the people tied too much into them (or they could rescue themselves by learning from what happens outside). If the entire world is held hostage to one central ideology, even if it is the "best" of our time, we may never recover from the "local maxima" that it will create.

[_0ffh]

We need a healthy plurality of world views and the freedom to live them. That is the correct point of view, both from a moral and a consequentialist perspective. If we have a global monoculture then any flaw in that might doom the whole of humanity, instead of just a part of it.

[powerslacker]

Why is it morally superior to protect human life?

[_0ffh]

If we don't make it off this planet, it's more than likely that nothing else will.

"Why is it morally superior to protect life?"

Because I like it. Because it's life's prime directive to perpetuate life and I am a lifeform. Mumblemumblegod. Pick whatever you like. :)

[powerslacker]

You either have a coherent answer or you don't. Objective morality either exists or it doesn't.

[defaultprimate]

The entirety of the scientific method's pursuit of truth is built on Popper's philosophy of science and inquiry and has been highly effective at establishing objective truth.

It's kinda funny because you're making conjectures that are explicitly addressed in the book.