I am suggesting viewpoints based on my observations , and I just put them forward to see what would be the critic on those viewpoints and the reasoning the opponents express to falsify each viewpoint based on the relevant observation I mentioned. so that they would be modified or corrected .
And I guess that's how the debates in forums should go on .

But it seems that I drew little attention , perhaps because putting under question globally accepted and attractive norms , such as self-confidence do not raise appetites for debates .

They can't just go in their confident that they will try really hard, but with no take on their own abilities. Otherwise they should in fact refuse to operate and let someone they do have confidence in operate. — Coben

In general that's true because to be admired for ones effort is a norm in almost all communities and cultures . and it's in human's nature , and really hard to avoid it , although I think it's a weak point .

I don't expect we should totally ignore admiration , but beside it sometimes we should try to use our abilities or talents just for their benefits and not for other's admiration .

It may seems to be strange , but I think it might be a new idea to relieve humans somewhat from their egoistic behaviors that, I suppose, is the major cause for crimes , inequalities and persecutions that's prevalent in our modern age as before .

You may say there are many celebrities or well known characters who became prominent for loving admiration and being self confident .
And I would reply many of them didn't overcome the conflict between self confidence and egoism , so ran into scandals (sex scandals , sexual harassment or financial corruptions as you may have heard) , Some celebrities overcame that conflict by perseverance and strong family or social ties , but I think are still vulnerable, and finally some celebrities were perished by that conflict and eventually committed
suicide, that there's no need to name .

A cop without well founded confidence in his or her abilities is at a disadvantage in a gunfight in a way another cop would not be, one who was confident. — Coben

My problem is not with the word "confidence" , but with the objects that we should trust .
I think our abilities , capabilities and judgements should not be the objects for our confidence ,
instead our "efforts" to find the correct manners or our "quests" for truth , are much better objects
for confidence and we would be much more flexible in correcting our mistakes to promote our
abilities , capabilities and judgements .

And just remember those cops who shot too recklessly and killed innocent people and even children or the elderly.
Those who were dubbed trigger-happy . Perhaps they had become too confident about their judgements to the point of disaster .

Michael Jordan was not infallible, but coaches, fellow players and he himself could be confident that he would help his team win. — Coben

But if they lose , should they lose their resolutions in doing their best in playing other games ?
So in this case perhaps we should say they are (or were) confident in their trial to perform
their best abilities in the game and not in their selves .
Although I know this attitude usually do not gives us enough incentive to do our best ,
but I think we have to change our attitudes .

Trust is not binary, all or nothing, nor is confidence. — Coben

Our problems in our lives may not be as simple as just wining or losing a game (although even in a game you should observe all the rules) .
Sometime we are encountered with complicated situations that even a single mistake or wrong decision would impair our whole actions .

It almost seems impossible to say whether the thought of infallibility is the cause of ones confidence or if one persons confidence is what causes the thought of infallibility — Enki B

When you trust another person , you may think he may do some mistakes that's not on purpose.
So you trust him or her not because of absolute infallibility but partly or mostly for his or her honesty or loyalty . but when we are talking about trusting ourselves , honesty or loyalty becomes meaningless and the only thing that's left is infallibility .

"confidence" , perhaps we should use the word "courage" instead — David Jones

I would agree that there is definitely a better way to word this conflict. — Enki B

But using incorrect words cause misinterpretations and wrong values .

you can find a sort of self-confidence that is the direct result of the loss of ones ego — Enki B

How the confidence in something may result in the loss of it ?

confidence is what starts an individual action, that action is then what should be related to fallibility. — Enki B

But the meaning of confidence is a belief in infallibility before the action , otherwise we shouldn't use the word : "confidence" , perhaps we should use the word "courage" instead , but courage is not always
wise .

You can trust that it's fallible — frank

Then we should use the word : "confidence in self-fallibility"

Having self confidence is not equivalent to denying one's fallibility. — frank

I still cannot solve this logical conflict : one cannot trust something that's fallible .

If you never make mistakes, you aren't doing anything. — frank

of course , and that's why we should be capable of accepting our mistakes so that we
would be able to correct our behaviors or strategy in life .

Confidence is like the sail on a sailboat. It can get you into trouble, yes, but you aren't going anywhere without it. — frank

I guess that's true , confidence gives us courage , but does confidence is necessarily equal to
self-confidence ?

Looking at this issue at first step , as you said , is an etiquette issue .
But committing mistakes in a society that individuals share common interests ,
often breach the rights of others in that society.
So being incapable of accepting one's mistakes ends up in moral issues
and a major cause for developing immoral character .

I just quoted that phrase "Philosophy is dead" to highlight the point that philosophy or philosophies in our age have not come along with the somehow rapid changes in our lives and environment.

The rapid development of technology in our age, especially in telecommunication and transportation, pushing us towards the phenomenon called globalization in one hand and the gap in economy , political maturity and technology , that's all elements of welfare and living standards between the developed and undeveloped countries in the other hand , caused the migrant crisis and clashes between cultures , religions and ethnicities resulting in extremism , inflaming racism and reinforcing segregative and anti migrant inclinations and politicians in the developed countries . (remember Br-exit and US president now at office).
A trend quite opposite globalization phenomenon that seems inevitable.

Also the growth of non-renewable energy consumption besides the growth of population, especially in the third world, caused the global warming trend and the prospective drought and desertification in many parts of the world .

In other words , our world(planet) is becoming smaller , while our cultures , religions and ethnicities , and in a nutshell: our identities , holds us apart and we behave as if we stay apart , as before .

Now I am asking:
Is modern and even postmodern philosophies were answering and do answer the needs of humans' way of thinking and behavior to help humans cope with the oncoming vicissitudes?

So again, in my first post, I referred to that scientist's opinion about the habitability of our planet in near future. not to confirm that " philosophy is dead" , but perhaps because it has to be reviewed to find its weak or even wrong points.