RE: I find your lack of argument disturbing
"Nor is it about those who (mis)understood the uncertainty principle and quantum entanglement watching "The Secret" and now are convinced that, since knowledge is always due to be overturned, it is advisable give up the quest right away, replace experiment with mantra and to wallow in blissful ignorance instead."
LMAO! The "quantum woowoo" stuff is really annoying. People don't even go verify claims of others to look at the bare experiments and results themselves, rather opting to accept the conclusions of beliefs others form and sell them to buy into. Then it justified a warped worldview where they literally create reality with their consciousness...
I have done work on belief and identified a healthy form of belief as imagination and speculation, while also recognizing a detrimental failure to distinguish between belief and truth while claiming a belief is "truth". This is a quintessential distinction that people need to make in order to progress away from dogma and greater understanding of reality.
"Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman" played a formative role for my world view, and claims to "truth". Feynman is adamant that an intellectually honest scientist should not say "this is so and so", and instead say "this seems to be so and so under these or those circumstances, except if".
I also noticed I (accidentally? subconsciously? coincidentally?) managed never to use the word "truth" or "true" in my essay. I am not a solipsist, but I think if there is an objective truth, everyone has his own viewpoint and perspective on it and additionally views it through different filters and lenses. That is why it is important for me that debates about it be fair and enlightening, the arguments sound, the reasoning honest.
Very often I come across a debate between views on a matter I have only limited knowledge about; and if not forming an opinion is not an option, I have found that a good test for veracity is the style of argument. If repeatedly, the supporters of one view resort to personal attacks and ridicule or fallacious arguments ("all experts agree" - well, that's a bad sign usually) while the other side forwards experiment, experience and documented sources, I am more likely to side with a viewpoint I was originally skeptic about. Simply because I am convinced that "speaking truth to power" does not need to resort to verbal violence. "You are wrong, and here is why" is so much more powerful to the "lurker" "on the fence" than "lol you such a moron for believing that".
Thank you for your comment and pointing me to your post, I enjoyed and recommend the read!