What do you think about methodological skepticism? Do we ever follow this procedure in our daily lives, or do we do the opposite. In other words, do we tend to believe things until it becomes impossible to believe them, rather than doubting everything we can? If so, does this suggest that methodological skepticism is not a good strategy?

I think methodological skepticism is something that is hard to accept at first, but can be used effectively to prove skepticism. I am one of the types of people that clings onto my belief until it is evident that whatever it is, is not true. For example, when I was younger I read a children's book that said corn grew on trees. I loved that book. There was no way you could convince me that corn did not grow on trees. Eventually as I got older, I visited a corn field and was in shock. I doubted my eyes. When I realized that corn did indeed grow from the ground, it made me question all my other childhood assumptions. So I can see how skeptics relate everything back to beliefs. When you truly wholehearted believe in something and then you find out its not true, it makes you question everything around you. Even though I do see where skeptics are coming from. I do not agree about some things. The early Greek skeptics stated "Don't worry about what you cannot know". Isn't questioning beliefs in itself, apart of philosophy? So if we never question and worry, how will we ever know? Is this to say we should be the horses with the blinders on? knowledge. I think that we have came a long way as a people. So 2+2 does not equal 4? Some things are undoubtable. Facts equal Facts until proven otherwise. But even though I do not agree with methodological skepticism, I believe it has interesting points and can be a good strategy to disprove beliefs of others.