I had a great philosophy class on Kant one summer long ago in my undergrad life. What I recall the most was debating the teacher, on what I don’t really remember but I was pleased that I was being taken seriously. I know I got crushed, my assumptions of the world torn asunder, my logic exposed as fallacious, but my ego was fine. It was honest scrutiny, nothing personal. And I took that notion to heart, the idea that examining cherished beliefs is different than judging a person.
It was awesome.
In scrutiny done right, you are questioned into doubting your own assumptions, cornered by your own entailments, and come to a realization of why you are wrong or at least wrong in some view. And as things become less concrete and more contingent, a taste for ambiguity replaces the pang of angst when confronted by incertitude, yet at the same time faith in your own reasoning becomes more credible to yourself. You thought it through, you did the maths.
A kind of Taoistic unlearning has to happen, an unwinding of the ego. A life of understanding requires a humble openness to where the evidence takes you. It is never a question of being right as much as a question of being less wrong which makes things less of a trial and more of an experiment.