Evidence in any decision or outlook is critically essential. The meaning of evidence imparts facts, information (knowledge) and corroborations (verification) regarding an object or event. All of that leads to a conclusion we call truth. So evidence and corroboration leads to truth (look up "evidence"). From that definition alone, I don't see how we could possibly operate in life without a constant consideration of evidence, so that we can arrive at truth.
Truth is not relative. Truth is always true. What might have been considered true and is no longer was never true to begin with. If it WAS true, although assumed, was based on faulty evidence and faulty information (maybe faulty reasoning). Therefore, we need to discern what our sources of information are and that corroboration comes from neutral and reliable (as much as can be determined) sources.
My trusty old college Logic text (Practical Logic, which I have no reason to doubt) states that one source of knowledge (information) can come internally via reason. Reason is the process via which we take data (facts and information) along with corroboration (separate data) and conclude or arrive at a new (or perhaps old but logical) conclusion. For example: If we're asked for the sum of 1 million plus 1 million, it's unlikely that we have ever seen one, let alone two million, to proceed and concretely come up with an answer. Nevertheless, we can muster a "2-million" answer based on reason. It seems that this and the other methods of knowledge and corroboration is all that would be required in order to maintain a proper "world view". Reasoning in a logical manner has rules and it seems not everyone is able to perform that task decently well. Logic is a great arbiter of whether our views are valid or not.
Nevertheless, a "world view" would always likely remain incomplete because we just don't have the ability to know everything and we're inherently limited to information that could give us an accurate picture. In an ideal world, our "world view" would contain many "I don't know" statements. It would be obvious that some things can never be concluded upon or reasoned to a fare-thee-well.
jgnat: " Similarly, no-one has taken a tape-measure to a star. Nevertheless, from known constants and triangulation, we can get very precise measurements. "
This is a very good example of how reason can yield knowledge. We take some basic proven factors (units of measure [feet, miles], trajectory, the speed of light, etc) and deduce, without actually using a physical yard stick that such and such star is this or that far away. Even so, we have a problem: our present way of measuring has led us to conclude that based on the way the universe is expanding (the increasing distances between stars and galaxies), we are forced to conclude that there's much more matter we don't see -- Dark Matter. So lately, we are revisiting our ways of measuring to eliminate hypothetical matter that (by the scientific method) cannot be verified. What some are suggesting is that our idea of the constancy of the speed of light or time relativity is wrong. Holy cow!
botchtowersociety, you make an excellent point in your #9070 post. You allude to mentality and how we can possibly know if we're facing it. I have seen clever computer programs that (via a monitor and keyboard) interacting with a human have fooled the human into thinking that they were talking to another person. You also refer to the philosophical argument that has been raised about this, one which you do not mention but still has sway on this dialog is the "Discourse on the Method" by Rene Descartes. The idea that there is very little we can ascertain to let us tell the difference between illusion and reality leads to not very much to conclude except that we (strictly I, or whomever you are) exists and the rest is as good as a dream or some reality we must accept with little other confirmation.
botchtowersociety: " Yes, but as we both know, electrons are measured in other ways. "
Hence lies the problem. There is a part of the quantum physics that tell us that what we measure, when it comes to the electron and similar particles, is a statistical prediction of how much energy it may have depending on its location, which is or would be unknown. If you knew exactly where it was, you would know very little else about it. What other ways do we have to measure an electron that contradicts this Uncertainty Principle? The only other thing I can think of is that there is no such thing as an electron and what we really have is a one-dimensional string that floats in and out of another 11 dimensions which, depending on its vibration, gives us the appearance of what we call an electron. The problem is, we can't test that. I can't think of any other way of explaining how critical evidence is to our world view and how much little our world view can actually encompass.
