Good judgement according to whom?

Good judgment is not according to anyone, Pan. Good judgment comes from an accurate understanding. The measure of that is not a personal one. Reality has a way of showing one their own mistakes. If mistakes are being made, then good judgment is lacking somewhere along the line.

Now referring this back to what was being discussed, we can surely agree that all people are absolutely certain of some things. I mean, I certainly do not question whether or not my bed will be where I last saw it, if you know what I mean.

I would think/believe that there would be a medical/psychological term for a human who loses all sense of certainty regarding everything in life. Such a person would not be capable of going about their daily business.

Good and bad is an opinion.

It can be used that way, and it can mean accuracy as well, which is not a matter of opinion.

As in "good shot" or "bad shot" when aiming for the bulls eye?

If you aim for a target, and you don't hit what you intended to hit, then that is a "bad" shot (as in inaccurate.)

So then if your results are not in line with your intentions or desires, then that is "bad."

If you intended to kill someone, and you failed, then that is "bad."

That's why semantics are important for understanding what another is attempting to convey. Thus, it is often the case when using contentious terminology, that a speaker define his/her terms. It tends to cut down on misunderstandings. I usually just attempt to employ the principle of charity and assume that we are speaking the same language and understand that the context is indicative of which meaning for which terms are being used.

That is why you are often misunderstood. Words can have different meanings. That is why I find a lot of your statements ambiguous. Not wanting to "assume" what you mean, sometimes I just can't respond.

Well, yeah. It would generally be taken to mean that given the context.



This is an equivocation fallacy. The term has different uses, in this instance the most common use of "bad" would be a moral claim. Although, if one use the term in the usual way, then murderer is a bad shot.

I'm often misunderstood because people do not ask the right questions. I can and often do clearly explain.

I also think about things in ways that most people do not consciously entertain. That is why I enjoy philosophy so much. Most people do not understand what it is and what it is about because the common misconception(s) about it.

we all don't agree on what is acurate understanding.

That's life and most are too busy within their day to day lives to think about things that are too often taken for granted.

The fact that we do not all agree on what constitutes being accurate does not affect/effect accuracy.

not so. i've often taken people at their word who i did not know well enough to form a position of trust. i think that's called the benefit of the doubt.

oh, i often presupose. but hold no beliefs. huge difference.

Giving the benefit of the doubt is trusting another at their word. What sense does it make to say, I do not trust them, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt anyway by not trusting them.

Presupposition is covert belief grounding a statement.

Define "covert" please...

There's nothing wrong/bad about holding belief. It is impossible to not do so. It is a human condition, and that is a fact. The problem lies within how it has been discussed throughout history. Belief is all too often attached to religion.