[jesuscript]

Depends. Vigorous debate and experimenting does not come from humility. It comes from conviction. Humility is an end game, you can only reach for it when you accept that you are wrong (at the end of the argument) and likewise, when you win and don’t parade it and acknowledge the merits of the other side.

But during the process, no, there can be no humility. You have to fight.

[memling]

> Depends. Vigorous debate and experimenting does not come from humility. It comes from conviction. Humility is an end game, you can only reach for it when you accept that you are wrong (at the end of the argument) and likewise, when you win and don’t parade it and acknowledge the merits of the other side.

This isn't true. Humility is accurate self-assessment, and from here can easily spring conviction, experimentation, and vigorous debate. (I know my opinions on subject X are well formed and tested by trial, error, and experience; that is why I hold such and such an opinion and can debate about it with conviction. It's also why I can take corrective measures and understand what others are saying, etc., etc.)

Indeed, humility is basically a prerequisite to adequate debate. One of the problems of society is that we don't get this.