So what extra is needed to go from feeling certain that God exists to being certain?
— creativesoul

You can't be certain that God exists, because being certain is knowing and the things we can be said to know are things that are inter-subjectively corroborable. — Janus

Good. That's what I thought you meant. So, according to your line of reasoning here, being certain requires things that are inter-subjectively corroborable, which amounts to saying that we can only be certain of things that can be verified. Whereas feeling certain does not require a verifiable component(thing). Hence, that is consistent with the overlap you spoke of earlier, where one can feel and be certain that 2+2=4, but one can merely feel certain that God exists. Presumably, as a result of "God exists" not being verifiable.

I'm trying to get Janus to explain what the difference is, according to his/her position, between feeling certain and being certain. Seems to me like that difference amounts to feeling certain being on par with belief whereas being certain is on par with knowledge.
— creativesoul

Feeling certain is feeling that you know the truth while being certain is knowing the truth; both are about the person. So, again I can feel certain that God exists, but I cannot be certain that God exists. I can be certain that 2+2=4. Can you spot the difference yet?
— Janus — Janus

Well, to be sure, there's more than one difference in need of careful consideration. One the one hand, there's the difference between the words you're using, and the words I've been using to say the same thing. On the other, there's the difference between how you're using the term certain. The difference you're asking about above is about the latter. The question has been answered to our satisfaction.

I'm aware of the semantic differences you're claiming that there is between your use of "feeling certain" and your use "being certain". That difference is all about what you mean when using those words(what you're doing with them). I've paraphrased several claims on two separate occasions. Your agreements regarding my 'paraphrasing' in both confirms that I've rightly understood what you're claiming.

You're invoking the difference between feeling that one knows the truth and one knowing the truth as a means for grasping the difference(by virtue of comparison) in what you mean when using "feeling certain" and "being certain". Your use of "feeling certain" describes situations of one believing that they know the truth, whereas your use of "being certain" describes situations of one knowing the truth.

Can you see how what you said above is the same, in different words, as what I said above? Also you do seem to be agreeing that there is a difference between being certain and feeling certain. If not then point to the difference you think is there between the two statements above. — Janus

Considering the differences between your statements is not enough to understand the remarkable difference in the meaning between our respective statements. You've now confirmed more than once that my paraphrasing captured what you meant. That tells me that I've correctly understood what you're arguing.

What's needed here, is a mutual understanding, not only of what you've meant, but also of what my paraphrasing meant. The differences there are remarkable enough to shed light on the problems with your particular use.

What’s so special about knowledge? Knowledge can be wrong... — praxis

Nothing special about knowledge if it can be wrong. On my view, it cannot.

...we can feel certain even we are not...
— Janus

We can feel certain even when we are not right. We can feel certain even when we are not justified in being so. We can feel certain even when we're dead wrong.

We cannot feel certain when we are not feeling certain.

So, Janus, help me out here...

Would you agree to all of the above statements? — creativesoul

Why would I not agree when you are simply echoing what I've already said? — Janus

Well, to be blunt, you've said none of those things. I do think you meant them though. What you said was...

we can feel certain even when we are not...

If what I said echoes that then that is an incomplete thought filled out by my echoes. — creativesoul

The above is for a bit of context...

We need to examine the differences between "We can feel certain, even when we are not", and "We can feel certain even when we are not right". If those two statements mean the same thing, then cases of feeling certain even when we are not certain are cases of feeling certain even when we are not right. So, being certain is on par with being right. Since being right requires true belief, then being certain would as well. True belief requires truth. If being certain requires true belief and true belief requires truth, then being certain requires truth as well. Truth is not about the believer. If truth is not about the believer and being certain requires truth, then being certain is not about the believer in the sense that the truth of the belief is not about the believer. Hence, I noted that earlier...

Janus' use of "feeling certain" is about the believer, but his use of "being certain" is about the truth of the belief. — creativesoul

...but you objected...

No, you've got it wrong again. Feeling certain is feeling that you know the truth while being certain is knowing the truth; both are about the person. — Janus

Well no, I've not got it wrong at all, my friend. I've correctly understood what you meant at every turn, and you've confirmed that much on more than one occasion. The contentious matter is directly above. It's your notion of "knowing the truth". You hold that knowing the truth is about the believer, and while I would not reject that claim outright, for knowing the truth is indeed about the believer - in part at least. People do have true belief after-all, but knowing the truth is not just about the believer, and I think that you've neglected to carefully consider the rest of what it's about. So, in a very limited sense, knowing the truth is about people. However, the problem shows up when we consider what true belief(and hence *what else* knowing the truth) requires.

Knowing the truth requires true belief. Belief is true only if and when it corresponds to fact/reality. Hence, knowing the truth requires belief, fact/reality, and correspondence between belief and fact/reality. Correspondence is not about the believer(with exceptions involving claims about oneself, of course). Correspondence is the key element in knowing the truth(even in the exceptions above, one could be wrong about themselves). Thus, knowing the truth is not just about the believer. It's about correspondence as well.

Correspondence, it seems clear to me, is also the key difference between your notions of feeling certain and being certain. Correspondence is exactly what's being verified and/or corroborated after-all.

Considering the differences between your statements is not enough to understand the remarkable difference in the meaning between our respective statements. You've now confirmed more than once that my paraphrasing captured what you meant. — creativesoul

The differences there are remarkable enough to shed light on the problems with your particular use. — creativesoul

You seem to be contradicting yourself; you've said your statements "capture what I meant" which I read as meaning they agree with what I meant, then you speak of some purported "remarkable difference" which you haven't explained as far as I can tell.

There only seems to be this, and I've already corrected the misundertsnding which seems to lurk there:

You hold that knowing the truth is about the believer, and while I would not reject that claim outright, for knowing the truth is indeed about the believer - in part at least. — creativesoul

I'm not concerned with knowing the truth in any absolute sense or with what truth is. I'm saying that being certain is being certain of knowing the truth in a verifiable inter-subjective context which is contrasted with merely feeling certain of something being true which cannot be inter-subjectively confirmed.

You should know from my past history of posting on here that I've argued that the so-called deflationary conception of truth as expressed in Tarski's T-sentence just is, despite the protestations of the dogmatists, an encapsulation of the logic of correspondence. But I'm not concerned here with accounts of what constitutes truth as such, but with the difference between subjective and inter-subjective experiences of certainty. so it still escapes me as to what you think the "remarkable difference", your elusive purportedly very significant point of disagreement, is.

The more significant idea I've been exploring is that it makes no sense to speak of knowing something that one is not certain of or believing something one does not feel certain of. To the extent that one is uncertain one does not know, and to the extent to which does not feel certain one does not believe, but rather doubts.

I disagree, though this is semantics and use does vary.
Certain has to do with a mental attitude, not the truth value of one's belief. — Bylaw

I haven't said otherwise. I've said that merely feeling certain obtains when one believes that something one cannot be certain of is true; the example I gave was being certain that God is real.I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself to clear up other's misunderstandings..

To the extent that one is uncertain one does not know, and to the extent to which does not feel certain one does not believe, but rather doubts. — Janus

But that's just not the meaning of the word at all. If I'm 90% sure it's afternoon, no one in their right mind would describe that situation as me "doubting it's afternoon", yet I don't 'feel certain' it's afternoon either.

But that's just not the meaning of the word at all. If I'm 99.9999% sure it's afternoon, no one in their right mind would describe that situation as me "doubting it's afternoon" — Isaac

But that's a ridiculous stipulation; you are a hundred percent sure it's afternoon (if it is). In any case if you are 99% sure of something (ignoring the stupid idea that you could ever quantify that) or unsure to any degree, then you are not certain but are entertaining a blend of belief and doubt.

but are entertaining a blend of belief and doubt. — Janus

So what about the afternoon? You're ruling out "I believe it's afternoon" because I don't feel certain. We can rule out "I doubt it's afternoon" because I clearly don't.

So what is the name of my attitude toward "its afternoon"?

Nothing special about knowledge if it can be wrong. On my view, it cannot. — creativesoul

“What was once useful may no longer be useful.”

So what is the name of my attitude toward "its afternoon"? — Isaac

It's a weird example, but I'll play along. If you are uncertain as to whether it is afternoon, then it seems to follow that you entertain some doubt, Are you vacillating between believing it is afternoon and doubting it? In other words are you vacillating between certainty and uncertainty?

I haven't said otherwise. — Janus

To me the following does not fit with my description of what certain means...

You can't be certain that God exists, because being certain is knowing and the things we can be said to know are things that are inter-subjectively corroborable.

Do you think we can be said to know anything we cannot be certain of? Do you think we can be said to believe anything we do not feel certain of? — Janus

I am taking these questions as expecting the answer should be 'no'.

I don't think feeling certain or being certain are distinguished in the use of certain. He was certain he was right but he was mistaken. He felt certain he was right, but he was mistaken. Both those sentences read a plausible assessments to me.

And I went into issues like this in my previous post. So, I don't think we agree. But, if I am wrong about the difference in our positions, well, just ignore my post. If I am right about the difference, well I guess I shouldn't have to repeat myself either.

I don't think feeling certain or being certain are distinguished in the use of certain. He was certain he was right but he was mistaken. He felt certain he was right, but he was mistaken. Both those sentences read a plausible assessments to me. — Bylaw

They may not be distinguished in sloppy common usage, but isn't that the point of sharpening usage: to clarify the underlying logic?

"He was certain he was right, but he was mistaken" expressed in my terms means that he felt certain he was right, but he was not certainly right (because he failed to investigate the matter sufficiently, or whatever). To be certain means, inter-subjectively speaking, to be certainly right. You can be certain of many things: 2+2=4, the Sun is larger than the Earth, vertebrates have an internal skeletal structure, and so on and so on, almost endlessly. Of these kinds of things you can be certain (excluding ridiculous radical skepticism). As I've acknowledged, being certain subsumes feeling certain, but feeling certain does not necessarily entail being certain.

...I'm not concerned with knowing the truth in any absolute sense or with what truth is. I'm saying that being certain is being certain of knowing the truth... — Janus

Given that you originally invoked "knowing the truth" as the distinction between feeling certain and being certain, if you are not concerned with what truth is, then you're not concerned with what "knowing the truth" means. If you're not concerned with what "knowing the truth" means, then your not concerned with what you're adamantly arguing over, and thus your thoughts on the matter are not worth much more of my time.

...you speak of some purported "remarkable difference" which you haven't explained as far as I can tell...

...you've said your statements "capture what I meant" which I read as meaning they agree with what I meant...

You did say that I was "echoing" what you had already said after reading my statements, despite the fact that our respective statements were remarkably different in that I added at least one term, for starters...

Contrary to what you've said, I have set out the differences between "we can feel certain even when we are not" and "we can feel certain even when we are not right". As hinted at above, the term "right" was added without subsequent objection. You offered the claim, and I added a term andchecked for your agreement. You readily offered it up. You did not object to that term being added. Rather, you claimed that I was "echoing" what you said.

So...

Given that the sounds produced by a reading is not identical, if my saying "we can feel certain even when we are not right" echoed your saying that "we can feel certain even when we are not", then I can only take that to mean that I captured your meaning, or that our different statements pretty much mean the same thing to you. All this being said...




You've just admitted to not being concerned about what truth is. If one is not concerned with what truth is, then they cannot be concerned with what "knowing the truth" means. If "knowing the truth" is central to someone who claims that they are not concerned with what truth is, well we've reached the end as far as I can help. Any further progress requires you performing a bit of damage control, because you've admitted to not being concerned with what we're discussing here.

Does those who believe admit they know it is not true?

Contrary to what you've said, I have set out the differences between "we can feel certain even when we are not" and "we can feel certain even when we are not right". As hinted at above, the term "right" was added without subsequent objection. You offered the claim, and I added a term andchecked for your agreement. You readily offered it up. You did not object to that term being added. Rather, you claimed that I was "echoing" what you said. — creativesoul

"We can feel certain even when we are not" means, as I read it, we can feel certain even when we are not certain (i.e. cannot be certain). And this of course entails that we can be wrong about what we feel certain about. So, nothing there is inconsistent with what I've been saying; rather it supports it. That's why I said you had been echoing or paraphrasing what I had said.

Given that you originally invoked "knowing the truth" as the distinction between feeling certain and being certain, if you are not concerned with what truth is, then you're not concerned with what "knowing the truth" means. — creativesoul

I'm concerned with the kinds of things which are counted as being beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. certainly true, by the community at large, not with what constitutes or justifies being counted as such. That is an entirely different discussion.

You claimed that being certain is knowing the truth and then later openly expressed no concern about what truth is. Nothing left for me to say...

You claimed that being certain is knowing the truth and then later openly expressed no concern about what truth is. Nothing left for me to say... — creativesoul

You're haven't been saying anything relevant in the way of disagreement any way, so probably better that you don't feel you have anything left. We don't have to know what generally makes things true in order to know that they are commonly counted as such. I have never seen any account which makes more sense than correspondence, so it seems that at least we agree on that much.

I'm not concerned with knowing the truth in any absolute sense or with what truth is. I'm saying that being certain is being certain of knowing the truth... — Janus

You're saying that being certain is being certain of something that you're not concerned with.

No, I'm not; that's just your fantasy. Are you certain of the kinds of things I've used as examples of what is commonly taken to be certainly true? The statements that are expressed about those things are commonly understood to be true because they correspond to the the actuality of the things the statements are about. What more needs to be said about that?

To borrow a bit from you(I do not like the phrase "knowing the truth", but since you've chosen it)...

Certainty is confidence that one knows the truth; that some belief or other is true; is the case; corresponds to fact/reality, etc. Certainty does not require the belief in question to be true in order for the believer to be absolutely certain that it is. One can be both certain and wrong. History is chock full of examples.

Being certain and knowing the truth are different. The former is the attitude the person has towards some belief, particularly being confident that it is true. The latter is determined by whether or not the belief(s) is(are) true.

What you've said here is irreconcilable with all this...

Being certain and knowing the truth are different. — creativesoul

It's true that one could inadvertently know the truth without being certain of it; so all instances of knowing the truth are not necessarily being certain of knowing the truth. But all instances of being certain of knowing the truth, as opposed to feeling certain of knowing the truth are instances of knowing the truth.

I've given examples; do you disagree that I can be certain that 2+2=4. that the Earth is roughly spherical, that vertebrates have an internal skeletal structure and so on? Do you disagree that I cannot be certain that God exists, but that I can feel certain of it? Answer those questions in a straightforward ingenuous way and/ or provide counterexamples, or I'm done conversing with you.

You're haven't been saying anything relevant in the way of disagreement... — Janus

That's not true. I read your bits. I summarized what you were getting at. I verified the summary by asking if you agreed. You characterized my summary as "echoing" what you've already said. Thus, I concluded that being certain, being right, and knowing the truth are all the same thing on your view. So...

I first figured out what you meant. Then, I went on to the issues...

...all instances of being certain of knowing the truth, as opposed to feeling certain of knowing the truth are instances of knowing the truth. — Janus

If that were true, it would be impossible for anyone to be certain that "God exists" is true.

If that were true, it would be impossible for anyone to be certain that "God exists" is true. — creativesoul

it is impossible to be certain of that. You need to up your reading skills it seems.

...do you disagree that I can be certain that 2+2=4. that the Earth is roughly spherical, that vertebrates have an internal skeletal structure and so on? — Janus

Not at all. People are certain of all sorts of stuff, that stuff included.

Do you disagree that I cannot be certain that God exists, but that I can feel certain of it?

All sorts of people are certain that God exists.

If that were true, it would be impossible for anyone to be certain that "God exists" is true.
— creativesoul

it is impossible to be certain of that... — Janus

Hundreds of millions of people are certain of that.

All instances of being certain... ...are instances of knowing the truth. — Janus

That's what your notion of certainty boils down to.

I'm not concerned with knowing the truth in any absolute sense or with what truth is. I'm saying that being certain is being certain of knowing the truth — Janus

That's when you hung yourself.

You con fuse together "certainty" and "truth"... — Banno

All instances of being certain... ...are instances of knowing the truth. — Janus

If you are uncertain as to whether it is afternoon, then it seems to follow that you entertain some doubt — Janus

Yes. Some doubt, but more certainty. 10% doubt and 90% certainty to be precise.

Are you vacillating between believing it is afternoon and doubting it? In other words are you vacillating between certainty and uncertainty? — Janus

No. Just one single position.

If it's easier for you, I'm almost exactly 84% sure that I won't roll a one on a normal six-sided die. No vacillation between doubt and belief, just a single belief that there are six possible outcomes, five of which are the ones I'm interested in. My belief that "I will not roll a one" is roughly 84% certain. If I were betting (assuming I wanted to maximise my return) I would but exactly 84% of my investment on that outcome. If I were planning my day based on a dice roll I would invest about 84% of my thought planning for the {not-1} outcome and roughly 16% of my thought planning for the {roll-1} outcome.

People perform this kind of activity all the time, holding two possible outcomes at different levels of likelihood. We used to call that believing that X, but with less than 100% certainty. You want to change that language use, but I'm unclear as to what you want it changed to.

You want to change that language use, but I'm unclear as to what you want it changed to. — Isaac

I thought I'd explained it pretty clearly; it makes perfect sense to me, but if others don't get it or agree that's fine too. It's by no means that important and I've run out of enthusiasm for pursuing it any further.

The more significant idea I've been exploring is that it makes no sense to speak of knowing something that one is not certain of or believing something one does not feel certain of. To the extent that one is uncertain one does not know, and to the extent to which does not feel certain one does not believe, but rather doubts. — Janus

I get what you're saying here, but when attempting to parse belief and knowledge in terms of being certain and not, we're missing the key elements that separate belief and knowledge. Truth and/or justification/warrant. Knowledge and belief are not analogous with being certain and not. That comparison fails in all the most important respects.

I would not have any issue with someone saying that they feel certain that God exists but cannot be certain, if that means they strongly believe God exists but cannot be absolutely certain of it, especially if that person has a recent newly acquired personal standard of warrant(adequate/sufficient reason to believe) that demands verifiability, due to having serious doubts raised concerning other accompanying beliefs about God.

Oh...

Glad you like your new place. I'm with you all the way when it comes to preferring being more on the land than in the city or suburbs. Luckily, we live on an acre, so it's not so bad as the quarter acre carefully designed plots with fences between that are common nowadays. Twenty or fifty or a hundred acres would be better though!

Glad you like your new place. I'm with you all the way when it comes to preferring being more on the land than in the city or suburbs. Luckily, we live on an acre, so it's not so bad as the quarter acre carefully designed plots with fences between that are common nowadays. Twenty or fifty or a hundred acres would be better though! — creativesoul

Cheers...