I used to think I was smart. Then I started seeking truth and learning about life and the universe. I realized that I know nothing about life, the universe, or ultimate truth. Then I sought people who were wiser and more intelligent than myself. They didn't know anything either. There is very little out there that we can call actual knowledge. Therefore, anyone who thinks he is smart is really a fool. No great amount of knowledge is possible.
We who say i dont know to the question is there a god and what is he like etc. are right in saying we dont know while those who have false answers and think they know they are right are wrong when they say they know. They also cannot learn because they already think they know the answer while the person who says i dont know can learn the truth.
The more you think the more you understand that you can't be sure of anything you know. Wise men realize that it's probably impossible to know "the truth". They usually have lots of questions, very deep ones indeed, but they usually don't have any answers. Asking the right question is a very important step in learning, but wide men still have a lot more questions that answers
Wise men tend to think more before they say something. Less wise men just tell people popular things, things that people want to hear, that aren't necessarily the right answers.
Wise men care less about winning a philosophical debate. Other wise people will see the merit of the things they do say.
If we are equating the lower number of answers to greater wisdom, the wisest man has no answers at all. Is it just me or does that sound like a total contradiction? Let's look at the definition.
Wise: having or showing wisdom or knowledge usually from learning or experiencing many things.
If wisdom is showing knowledge of many things, then the question contradicts the meaning so pretty much refutes itself.
The most ignorant person on the subjects could also be unable to answer at all - but not from being wise but from a lack of knowledge on the subjects altogether.
One who comments on that which they have no prior knowledge is not just unwise and ignorant - they are a fool!
A sign of philosophical maturity is recognizing how little we actually know - I agree- it is one of the great lessons of Socrates.
BUT this doesn't mean that bad ideas or religious superstitions should tolerated either. Not everything is relative in moral or objective philosophy.
But herein lies the rub - how can we do this if we don't have some kind of certainty about the world? And, then, isn't having certainty also "having the most to say" ...?
So it might turn out that the most wise have a moral obligation to speak-up and say the most - or ask the most questions!
So while I understand the question - and agree with the hidden premise - I think it depends on objectivity and whether or not we can safely say something is more likely to be true ... Or that somethings are more true when compared to other things.