We are at the beginning of a post verification society.
Any image or video of anything will soon be faked by commoners. This will be a wild ride!
Any image or video of anything will soon be faked by commoners. This will be a wild ride!
So, back to the topic, we may have a few ways to build new shields against the new weapons, but this will be not trivial in technical and social matters, and their interactions - having the involved parts adequately understand the new realities: "a document may not be just trusted", "there is no boolean trust value but a 0..1 fraction", "signatures may not be a total warranty"...
To some people, "If you received an e-mail using that sender's name it does not mean he sent it; no, easily his account was not hacked (etc.)" is already a massive blow to their inner world, that makes them throw themselves in the chair finding it unbearable if taken seriously and incomprehensible if considered.
And, some people will find it "less painful" to distrust /you/ than to break the laws in their inner world (it's a phenomenon you may also meet in this very forum) - some minds observe a regimen of strict conservative low expenditure. Complexity involves social dangers.
I don't remember ever hearing of "the Socratic principle" – what do you mean by that?
I had a quick google. There are only 12 pages of results for the phrase, i.e. it's not commonly used, and every hit for "the Socratic principle" I find seems different. The first four I found: "Virtue is knowledge", "follow the argument wherever it leads", "Wherever a man posts himself on his own conviction that this is best or on orders from his commander, there, I do believe, he should remain", and "Whenever we must choose between exclusive and exhaustive alternatives which we have come to perceive as, respectively, just and unjust or, more generally, as virtuous and vicious, that very perception of them should decide our choice. Further deliberation would be useless, for none of the non-moral goods we might hope to gain, taken singly or in combination, could compensate us for the loss of a moral good." If I had to say what I thought Socrates' main principle was, it might be "study humans and ethics, not nature/physics or maths". It doesn't sound like you meant any of those, but I'm not sure.
(Socrates was said by the Pythia, the Oracle of Delphi, that he was the wisest man in Athens: Plato has he comment in the Apology that if there is one thing that makes him wise, it could be that he does not delude himself about his ignorance involving all the things he does not know).
To such "Socratic principle on wisdom and knowledge", the wiser you get the more you see limits in your knowledge; to its counterpart the D-K, lack of experience has subjects underestimate their ignorance.
People experienced in dealing with problems experience a large amount of unexpected obstacles, unexpected in the mental framework they brought: after some long while, difficulties and complications are expected preemptively, they are part of the picture one forms. Experience brings diffidence.
i.e. "Experienced people expect obstacles."
The experienced knows that such naïve «mental framework» is very common: he will expect naivety.