>He believed that there is only knowledge or ignorance
This seems to be an untenable proposition. Even without looking at the world of religious faith we have to make some decisions on the basis of evidence and probability. These tend to work well for large numbers but not for individual cases.
I've been working on medico-legal cases recently and expert witnesses are often asked to predict the likely future outcome of a disease in an individual. Although there is scientific evidence on the course of diseases it is constantly being updated and sometimes disagrees with the point of view that went before (BSE/CJD/HIV all spring to mind). All a clinician can be expected to do is to keep reasonably up to date with current evidence, combine it with their own clinical experience and make a clinical judgement. When asked to predict the course of a disease in an individual they are only able to express their own belief in what will happen. A doctor doesn't know if a patients arthritis will be worse in ten years time they can only say what they believe to be the most likely outcome. The court is then presented with various opinions and is left with a decision of which expert to believe.
Perhaps this is what has stoked public anger and litigiousness. Once it was possible for people to believe in the clergy, clerics, doctors, lawyers, engineers. These days the press love to focus on any instance of a professional being caught out - a priest in a dubious relationship, a doctors who makes a mistake, an engineer who does not stick to safety procedures.
