For me, it was needed to completely dispel the notion of the virus, in order to be able to start fresh. If I wouldn't have had dispelled it, I wouldn't have been able to make significant progress in that matter.

The sharp questioning of basic assumptions can happen when, over time, the openness of basic assumptions to questioning or criticism does not happen on its own.

In my view, it is a necessary development in each of us when we do not dogmatically consider or defend the premises we have grown up with.

I personally don't see dogmatism where a thesis is put into doubt, because doubting is not dogmatic by nature. It is where the thesis is defended as truth, fixed in space and time. Doubt is the helper in a process within which it depends on the people themselves who leave room for doubt and are aware that there can be no definite end and no definite certainty. Authentic science lives from doubt (in progress), not from proof, right?

People like to confuse terms because they are not interested and educated enough in their origin, derivation and distinction from each other.

The problem with dogmatism is that it is very vocal and self-righteous in its external communication and corrupted at its core (by money or belief). The dogmatist is someone who does not allow himself any doubt, and that is the whole difference from someone who uses his reason and always allows doubt to apply, precisely as a possibility of being wrong.

I see the problem in external communication: if you stand on public stages and speak with conviction about something that you have identified as a problem and at the same time promote a general solution to this problem, doubt would be the immediate killer of such a general solution.

The non-dogmatist has a problem making himself heard if only because he is too inconspicuous in the general habitual lust for sensational news. He has to make it his nature, as it were, to present his view in an equally convincing and purposeful manner. That becomes truly difficult if you are not a person who likes to do that. In a way, one has to become like the other, use the same power and speech in order to not lose ground.

What I experience in my personal communication encounters is, that I must become a bit like a dogmatist in order to be heard and taken seriously by the dogmatists. Whereas basically I am not that character. In my family I always take over the strong communication role when the others maintain indifference. It's an attempt to balance things out. And so it happens vice versa.

Thanks for that video. It's really an eye opener. Parts of it I already saw in other snippets and I am happy, they circulate.

Good morning from here :)