Some have thought that if we have the capacity to formulate an intelligible question, then it's likewise in our capacity to find an answer. (Maybe not in practice; maybe we'll blow ourselves up before we arrive at the answer. But in principle we could find it.) W.V. Quine has suggested this (see Question 230 ). By contrast, others believe that our cognitive make-up is such that necessarily some truths will remain forever beyond our reach. Noam Chomsky has suggested this view. Along these lines, some have argued that philosophical perennials (e.g., about the nature of free will) are precisely examples of questions that are intelligible to us but that will also forever elude us on account of our mind's structure. It's in virtue of our mind's having the rich structure that it does that we have learned as much as we have; but that very same structure also brings into being systemic limits to our knowledge. It is difficult to know how to resolve this question. Those who are impressed by Chomsky...

You are a skeptic and yet you "have no doubt" that you had paranormal episodes? Hmmm. I'm not sure what else you believe, so I'll just talk about me. I've never had such an episode so having one would really be Big News for me. On the other hand, I have misplaced objects, often in ways that leave me completely baffled for a while. So, if I had what seemed like a paranormal episode, I think I'd go with the more conservative explanation. Makes life a bit duller than it might otherwise be but (a) this conservativeness in belief formation has served me (and others) very well over the long haul, and (b) life is exciting enough that it doesn't need that kind of boost.

Isn't this obviously false? If everyone believes that jumping off a tall building will feel good, that will not save them, will it? There was a time when most every, perhaps every, human being believed that the sun rotated about the earth. We know they were wrong. So, we can appreciate that what we believe (even what all of us believe) is one thing, what's true is another.

It seems to me that you're asking whether there's a general rule of inquiry that one could adopt that will lead to the truth. I presume the answer is No. Inquiry requires judgment, taste if you will, and that has resisted all attempts at reduction to a collection of rules that can be mechanically followed.

This is a perennial and extremely vexing question about which there continues to be great debate. You might find this essay in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to be of value.