It seems to me that skepticism and doubt can lead to knowledge, but not to wisdom.
Wisdom is premised in moral order. Now if one intended to find out something about moral order, it is possible for study and investigation to disclose facts about the behavior of people. But the view is always of others, necessarily conducted "from the outside."
We really can't study ourselves "from the outside." Yet it has been said the beginning of wisdom is to "know thyself."
Wisdom requires a change from the inside, a "change of heart," a change of life. There's a crucial difference between observing something, and becoming something.
There's a crucial difference between fact and truth. One is a surface observation of a thing that has been corroborated. The other is the substance or essence of every something.
One deals with discrete existents; the other with the universal principles undergirding and ordering reality that, once perceived, may cause a reorientation of one's existence, a periagoge or "turning around" of one's life (as Plato called it) so as to conform one's manner of living to the truth perceived.
According to wisdom, whether in the classical or Judeo-Christian experience, the Universe is created, ordered, and sustained in love and truth and beauty and justice. But you would probably never draw that conclusion on the basis of mere observation. This is something that the mind and heart must see, or it cannot be seen at all.
Wisdom is the "cure" for skepticism and doubt. And it seems to me that wise people do not necessarily make bad scientists. It could be argued that Sir Isaac Newton, for instance, was an eminently wise man, in addition to being a world-class scientific genius. Certainly he was a deeply committed Christian who quite consciously regarded his brilliant system of mechanics as the descriptive elaboration of God's design of the world.
On the other hand, I could tick off a list of names of foolish people who IMHO are really, really bad scientists, LOL!
Hope this makes sense, rolling_stone. For whatever it's worth.
Based on the Word, I believe the reasons are manifold. Humble people are not burdened by a desire to protect or promote themselves. Because they live above their own self-interest, they are more objective in seeking, receiving and processing information. But most importantly, humble people are particularly blessed of God. Those blessings may include exceptional discernment.
Conversely, the proud are grounded by self-interest. By definition, they cannot rise above it. Their seeking, receiving and processing of information is only a subset of what it could be and is therefore biased to their own self-interest. Not only are they not blessed for their pride, God resists the proud.
In sum, whatever the motive for seeking - a proud person will have to use more effort to gain knowledge but it will always be biased and thus, there will be no wisdom (ratio) in the result. Conversely, a humble person may gain knowledge with much less effort and the result will always be wise because it is by definition, above personal bias.
Thank you. You nailed it.
It seems to me that skepticism and doubt can lead to knowledge, but not to wisdom.
Wisdom is precisely the ability to see the underlying order, it is the ability to see past the surface, it is the ability to see intrinsic value.
It is experience led by spirit and shaped by a moral sense. Remove experience from the equation and you have wisdom that is not yet wise. Remove the moral component and wisdom vanishes altogether.
"Wisdom is the "cure" for skepticism and doubt."
What I meant to say earlier, and in several hundred words did not quite say, is that it is not skepticism and doubt that built the modern world it was the hunger to know. And the hunger to know can't be separated from the hunger for God.