There are two doubts, and confusing them has caused a great deal of unnecessary suffering.
The first is corrosive: a generalised inability to commit to anything, which presents as open-mindedness and functions as paralysis. It doubts everything equally, which is the same as doubting nothing, since no proposition is ever examined closely enough to be moved by.
The second is an instrument. It is applied deliberately, to one thing at a time, by someone who wants to find out. It is uncomfortable, finite, and productive.
The difference in practice
Corrosive doubt asks: how can anyone know anything? Instrumental doubt asks: what would I expect to observe if this were false, and have I looked?
The first question cannot be answered and is not meant to be. The second can usually be answered by Thursday.
A doubt that does not specify what would settle it is not an enquiry. It is a mood.
Doubting what you want to be true
The discipline is asymmetric, and this is the whole of it. Everyone doubts the claims they dislike; that requires nothing. The practice begins when the instrument is turned on a conclusion you are relying on.
It is unpleasant in a specific way — not intellectually difficult, but socially and emotionally expensive. Which is why it is rare, and why the people who do it are recognisable at some distance.
Join the conversation