> That is to say that if one
> postulates a tool which can be used in the one sense, it should be as
> useful
> in the ohter sense.
>
Huh?
> To say that one can "doubt" as in "believ[ing] that
> there is more to be learned" is to say that we can, in contrast, have
> "faith" that what we know is true to the same degree that doubt does
> NOT
> apply.
>
Can't parse that. To me, if you believe that there is
more to be learned, then you believe that some of
what you think you know might be wrong -- you have
doubt. To have no doubt is to be some kind of
absolutist monster. Unless, that is, you have no
beliefs or opinions either, in other words nothing *to*
doubt, which might be one way of viewing the sort of
state a Buddhist might aspire to -- perfect equability.
BTW, I *don't* expect to find much agreement here
that to be without beliefs or opinions is a desirable
state! :-)
Robin