Methodological Skepticism

I agree with Descartes' idea that we are more certain of our own thoughts and what we think we know about the World around us, than we are of the ACTUAL World around us. People often hold sets of beliefs that have been passed down, or that they were raised with, without ever questioning where this information came from and if there's a chance that some of it could be wrong. For most people there are things we believe and do because to us that's just the way things are and the way it's supposed to be. When in reality, we should be questioning the things we know, and only accepting those things that we can prove without any doubt to be true. 

While I think methodological skepticism is a good strategy for making decisions about the validity of some things, I don't think it can be applied to all things in life. It's important to realize that if there is great doubt about a certain concept and it's validity, or if there are many little doubts about an idea, that it may not be true. However, there are also a lot of things that you may never be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt, and that doesn't necessarily make those thing untrue. A good example of this is love. When someone tells you they love you, you can chose to believe them or not based on the way you perceive their feelings for you. The person saying it may know without absolutely no doubt that they love the person they are saying this to - which when applied to methodological skepticism makes it true. However the one being told may, and most likely will, have doubts about the validity and truth of this statement because there's no way to logically prove it. Following methodological skepticism, the person's doubt about the statement would require holding off on judgment of it's validity until it can be proven with absolutely no doubt - which for something like love is never. But just because it cannot be proven with total bedrock certainty, doesn't mean it isn't true.

It really depends on the individual but I think that overall most people don't use the strategy of methodological skepticism, probably because of the time and energy it takes to do so. It's much easier to believe what we want to believe or what we've always been told until someone can prove us wrong or it becomes impossible to accept it as the truth, than it is to constantly doubt everything that is presented to us and only really believe the ideas that we can find no doubt for. There will most likely always be someone who doubts any idea in question, but that doesn't make it untrue. People often choose to take the easy way out, and the effort and thought that goes along with the practice of methodological skepticism is too much for many individuals. Constantly having to play devil's advocate in this sort of game of "is it really true" would be exhausting if applied to every idea one holds about life and about themselves. Most people are simply not willing to take the time to do this when it is so much easier to just believe what they already think they know. Especially since these ideas are usually similar to, and repeatedly reinforced by, those closest to them.