I am creating the thread as a way of examining the nature of uncertainty and the implications for life. Any thoughts? — Jack Cummins

Certainty is a bit like truth - it operates in different ways in different contexts and is hard to define. There is no property that all cases of certainty have in common - to be certain about one's name is of a different nature to being certain that the Battle of Hastings happened in 1066. People base most of their life decisions on inferences founded on various notions of predictability - the sun will come up; tomorrow will be largely the same as today, etc. But life is also ceaseless change and difference and it has often struck me as amusing that nothing is as certain as uncertainty.

'The idealist's question would be something like what: "What right[/i] have I not to doubt the existence of my hands?"' — Jack Cummins

What grounds does the idealist have to doubt the existence of her hands? Without grounds, it's not reasonable or "right" to do so. I agree with e.g. Pyrrho, Clifford, Peirce-Dewey, Witty et al on avoiding groundless doubts (or claims).

Some people are more inclined to doubt or not being certain than others. I remember at infant school that I didn't put up my hand to answer questions because I wasn't certain that I was right. Even now, I don't think that there is life after death but I am not certain. I suppose too much uncertainty in life is about ongoing risks and diving into sea even though it is not certain that this will not lead to drowning. Uncertainty can also lead to indecision and a constant weighing of pros and cons of any choice made.

Psychological uncertainty and epistemological uncertainty are very different in my mind.

Your post made me think about the following, but before I put it forward, I would like to state that it was thought based on the following premise, which I think agrees with your belief, "there is not a person, nor will there be, nor was there one, who can be certain about everything." Now, imagine any person. This person cannot be certain of everything, but there must be something this person is certain of; I mean, even if that is not the case - that a person can be certain of at least one thing* - a person must belief they are certain of at least one thing, whatever it is - even if it is just an illusion, hence the word belief; for I do not think a human being who cannot be certain of anything would be a person. This person - who is not certain of everything but is certain of at least one thing - is necessarily different to every other person there is/was/will be - they occupy a different space-time compared to every other person there is/was/will be; thus, the thing(s) this person is certain about is/are necessarily different to that/those thing(s) other people are certain about; and the same applies for every other person. Following this reasoning, imagine there was possible to find a mean of those things people can be certain about - something like an intersection of those things people are certain about. This mean would be the certainty of people, or what certainty means to people, as a collective. In other words, the mean would be equivalent to a concept of certainty based on the subjectivity of every person; it would be a concept based on the species. Now, imagine we could somehow do the same for every other species capable of being certain about something - it could be alien species. The end result would be a mean of certainty encompassing all subjectivity. What is this mean describing? Is the mean a truly subjective concept, or does it become more and more objective as the sample size increases? what is more certain, individual or collective certainty? what can we be certain about as a collective - this question makes me think of math and what it describes? what is certainty?

* Because it is physically impossible for a person to be certain of something - i.e., there is some physical law or divine providence or whatever that prevents a person to be certain of something.

Expressions I call to the witness box:

1. May be, could be, perhaps, likely, unlikely, hard to say, possibly, probably, who knows? I guess so, etc.[Possibility + Probability (mathematization of possibility)]

2. Definitely, sure, obviously, without doubt, clearly, most assuredly, certainly, etc. [Certainty]

Obviously, the existence of these expressions is an indicator of a complex world that boasts an entire spectrum/range of probabilities from 0% (impossible) to 100% (certain).

I guess we're discussin' skepticism here and I'd like to refer the reader to Pyrrho the skeptic who, as the story goes, had to be pulled to safety because, he claimed, he wasn't sure if the wagon barrelling down the street really existed or not and so continued to walk towards it. :snicker:

Cute paradoxes result which, to my reckoning, seems rather general and not specific to the doubting Thomas club:

The only thing that's certain is that we can't be certain. — :cool:

That's all she wrote!

Truth is interrelated with certainty. The nature of truth as a philosophy concept has been called into question by Julian Baggini in his book exploring truth. He says that it is not simply about what the idea of truth means, but that there are different kinds of truth, including eternal ones, moral and psychological ones.

In relation to certainty it is about the criteria by which truths can be verified. However, it is probably not simply about what postmodernists have spoken of as the construction or deconstruction of history, and the past, but about the unknown of the future.

You are definitely right to say that no one person can know everything, which does suggest the limits and partiality of what one knows. Cultural relativism highlights the way in which worldviews differ, and postmodernism points to the way in which all viewpoints are constructions, depending on how meanings of those who construct them.

Probability is important but it is not an exact scenario, because nature and people are unpredictable. It would be foolish to say that prediction and probability are not important. Even without it being done in a mathematical or systematic way, each person is likely to think about outcomes and risks of actions. But, it uncertain, and, that may be what makes human decisions difficult, because it is not possible to know the outcomes, especially as there are so many variables, including other people's subjective choices.

Apart from the uncertainty of the future, so much of knowledge is open to question epistemological questioning In addition, there are biases in the construction and transmission of knowledge. As Berger and Luckmann argued, in 'The Social Construction of Reality', all aspects of knowledge is connected to individual and cultural meanings and values. This awareness may be part of the reason why doubt and skepticism arise in many people's thinking.

Since I am a fallibilist, I find "cultural relativism and postmodernism" completely irrelevant as far as the methods of formal, natural, engineering and historical sciences used to produce knowledge of life, nature and the universe, are concerned

I had a look at the link on fallbilism. I had not even heard the term before, and, from what was in the link it seems a fair point of view. I am not saying that I am completely in favour of postmodernism, partly because it can become so theoretical. I have known a few people who are really into reading postmodernism and it almost becomes a language of its own.

However, I have read some writings on it including some on how history is dependent on who wrote it, for example, if a text written by a white male it may come from a very different angle than if it was written from a black female. It does seem an approach which links the nature of understanding to context, including social and political factors.

As far as cultural relativism is concerned, it was probably one of my own starting point for querying religious beliefs, because they are so variable, making the idea of one being completely 'the ultimate truth'. However, cultural relativism can become a rather wishy washy perspective, with everything being reduced to culture. It still seems that trying to weigh up ideas according to their merits or falsehoods is important in the ongoing process of philosophical examination.

I'll throw out the idea that when we talk about certainty and uncertainty in a universal, abstract way I think it misses that some people need to be more certain about some things or perhaps in general and others need to go in the other direction. We can't universalize for out readers a heuristic. Battered women probably need to be more certain that something do not deserve is happening. And perhaps their vulnerablity there is also present in other parts of their lives. I think many professional atheletes need to be certain about certain things. Not to where when they miss the shot their conception of reality is challenged, but that they make decisions decisively or with certainty. Then there are other people who need to question themselves more on some or many topics. And there are tempermental factors here.

People who regularly second guess themselves, while others note they have good intuitions or make good observations.

People who just refuse consciously or unconsciously to spend some time swimming in cognitive dissonence.

I think, personally, that I have been way to uncertain. I do notice certain areas of my life where I have been too certain Or not questioned myself enough. But in general trusting myself has not been easy. Over time I have increased my willingness to be certain. It's actually scary. But I haven't become more of an ass or more dangerous or more irresponsible. In fact, the general assessment of people around me is that I am less problematic and more useful.

This may seem far from epistemological issues, but the issues and people I raise (and yes, still rather abstractly) are making assessments of what is real, what is happening, what needs to be done, using the complicated mixed bag of epistemological tools we tend to use in everday life.

And I think the same idea holds for more traditional epistemological issues. Some people need to trust themselves more and their conclusions. Some people need to notice anomolies, cognitive dissonences, their failures, perhaps even fear of being wrong....more.

Yes, you make some fair points. Vulnerable groups probably need to be able to feel reassured that behaviour is not acceptable. The problem of moral relativism is that it can become a viewpoint which enables people to justify almost any behaviour. It is all reduced to the norms. When I was a student I had to write an essay on 'Is there anything which is absolutely wrong?' I found it a hard topic because cultural codes vary and situations vary. I concluded that there was probably nothing that was absolutely wrong, with the possible exception of murder and rape. However, thinking about it these are the extremes and it would be dangerous to think that cruelty and bullying, physically and emotionally, should not be criticised outrightly. Fortunately, there are laws and human rights and support organisations which point to specific harms caused. A philosophy which says that all is permissible would be the extreme of relativism and uncertainty stretched beyond all proportions.

Well, yep, when people are presented with different perspectives as happens when cultures/religions/ideologies/etc. interact, there usually is a stage where they're thrown into doubt and confusion. Which view is the right one? Which culture/person/group has got it right? It's vital to note that different perspectives are each correct in their own way i.e. a given weltanschauung has a constellation of beliefs/attitudes/etc. that accompany it.

In other words, to critique/analyze a point of view, one must examine the worldview that generates it. For example, a person whose ontology includes spirits/ghosts/demons/etc. will think/speak/act in a way different from a person who's scientifically inclined.

My hunch is that sooner or later the investigation terminates on one/more undecidables which are basically propositions whose truth is either not known (as of the moment) or, horror of horrors, can't be known at all. The Greeks called this aporia (bewilderment/bafflement) and Greek skeptics recommended epoché (suspend judgement, refuse to take sides because to do so is unjustifiable).

Nevertheless, speaking for myself, since we've come to the conclusion, via reasoning, that we can't justify/know anything with 100% certainty, truth loses its value, its importance. This should immediately prompt us to overhaul our priorities. If truth is unattainable, it would be madness/foolishness to seek it, oui monsieur? What, in your opinion, then should take the place of truth as the be all and end all of philosophy, in life?

N.B. Truth as in the correspondence theory of truth.

If truth is unattainable, it would be madness/foolishness to seek it, oui monsieur? — Agent Smith

No, that's silly. :smirk:

What, in your opinion, then should take the place of truth as the be all and end all of philosophy, in life?

I thought 'wisdom', or 'the good life', is (traditionally) "the be all and end all" of philosophy, and for life it's 'happiness'. As for "truth", it's a property of (some) propositions but not a goal of philosophy or science or life.

It's quite a riddle this. Given any investigation terminates on one/more undedicables, truth is impossible to get hold of. The only option then is to change the destination of philosophical journeys to something other than verum but the catch is any such alternative target is meaningless without truth. We're in a tight spot, oui monsieur? We know truth is beyond our ken, but the problem is nothing is meaningful then. We may imagine/speculate/give different perspectives though. We must learn to learn to live with IF p since to KNOW p is ~◇.

Truth was never the goal of philosophy. 'Love of wisdom', not love of truth, Smith. Stop kicking up sand and then complaining you can't see. :mask: Btw, there's no controversy about "finding truth" e.g. A = A; you were not born before your parents; there are more real numbers than integers; etc ...

Truth was never the goal of philosophy. 'Love of wisdom', not love of truth, Smith. Stop kicking up sand and then complaining you can't see. :mask: Btw, there's no controversy about "find truth" e.g. A = A; you were not born before your parents; there are more real numbers than integers; etc ... — 180 Proof

So, we agree then, philosophy ain't about truths. Truths send chills down my spine - they've been associated with objectivity for thousands of years and I instinctively recoil from things I'm not allowed to disagree with although, you
would've realized from my posting habits, I value consensus/agreement/conformity in re people (objective) truths. Isn't it far better that everybody's right (in their own way) than that only one/few are (in one and only one way). I guess that makes me a relativist when it comes to truth; it's wiser to be one in my humble opinion.

Of course philosophy is "about truths", but that doesn't mean "truth is the goal" – truths are "attainable" means to philosophy's end. I'm (mostly) a(n anti-idealist, anti-essentialist, anti-supernaturalist) fallibilist freethinker for whom "relativism", like nihilism and deconstructionism, is self-refuting sophistry. :wink:

Of course philosophy is "about truths", but that doesn't mean "truth is the goal" – truths are "attainable" means to philosophy's end. I'm (mostly) a(n anti-idealist, anti-essentialist, anti-supernaturalist) fallibilist freethinker for whom "relativism", like nihilism and deconstructionism, is self-refuting sophistry. :wink: — 180 Proof

Well, did you ever, in your philosophical journey, go through a phase where you thought relativism true prudent?

Nope. Blame it on my twelve years of working-class, Roman Catholic education. By the time I'd opted out of mandatory religion classes for my first philosophy class during 12th grade, my instinct was that the alternative to dogmatism was definitely not relativism. :fire:

Nope. Blame it on my twelve years of working-class, Roman Catholic education. By the time I'd opted out of mandatory religion classes for my first philosophy class during 12th grade, my instinct was that the alternative to dogmatism was definitely not relativism — 180 Proof

Oh! Perhaps relativism is the wrong concept to describe my views then. I value objectivity (a lot). At the very least it promises the truth, it keeps it real so to speak. However, I can't shake off the feeling that there's a dark side to objectivity - it takes us directly to the doorsteps of dogmatism of the kind that, in a way, worships absolutism, the position that some propositions are true no matter what. I sense a great danger in not being permitted to or prohibited from rejecting/disagreeing with beliefs even if they're based on rock-solid foundations. There'a a lot we might have to sacrifice for objectivity & truth. For the same reasons I have serious misgivings about mathematics for once something's demonstrated mathematically, we all havta fall in line - my way or the f**kin' highway is not my idea of a fun situation to be in.

I wasn't from a position of moral relativism. In abstract discussions of certainty or uncertainty and it's attendant problems we can imply or create heuristics that may actually be damaging. That idea works quite well with non-relativistic moralities. We don't want to do harm when generalizing about something. If a generalization about certainty or uncertainty can lead to harm, then it might not be correct or is only a partial truth. IOW I don't know how you got the idea that I was arguing for what you are describing in the first part below....

A philosophy which says that all is permissible would be the extreme of relativism and uncertainty stretched beyond all proportions. — Jack Cummins

In fact I am arguing against something and on moral grounds. Hey, it might hurt people if we impicitly or explicity make it seem like people need to be less certain.

Certainty and Uncertainty are not acts. To argue that rape is sometimes ok or cannot be judged because morals are mere cultural constructs is a relativistic stance because we are dealing with a specific act.

Attitudes about what one knows is not an act. Well, it could be argued that it is an act, but not in the violation of the other kind. It's an internal act/attitude.

How do we get the right people to realize which category they are in is a practical problem - and a huge one. How to get people to realize that on certain issues they are overconfident or underconfident...that's also a big issue.

But that doesn't change the problem with a simple heuristic, implied or explicit.

Also it need not be vulnerable groups who could be misled the such a heuristic. They may be well off white, straight people who doubt themselves too much, even on practical things, like their innovations. Ones that would help others, for example.

I can see that my focus may be tangential to the focus you have. From the OP it seems like focusing on when things are uncertain and what does this entail in relation to ethics and more. And in your description uncertainty is outside us in things/situations. I would say that situations and external reality are complicated and not clealry predicable and that uncertainty lies within us. As does certainty.

So when I read a quote like this...

'The certainty-seeking mindset has a way of causing those trapped in it to miss out on their lives: it renders them allergic to the present, where uncertainty reigns.' — Jack Cummins

I think it might be unclear if certainty is a mental state or a description of experiences/situations and one might draw the conclusion that the mental state is a problem. Which it can be, but not as a rule.

I am not really wishing to make any evaluations of mental states. If anything, I would see uncertainty as being one which calls for weighing up the nature of risks, for self and others, in choices being made. Thinking about risks is important but it is often imprecise because there are often many variables which come into play.

risks — Jack Cummins

The crux of the issue Jack, the very :heart: of the matter!

With regard to the nature of seeking truth it may be that it is worth trying to find aspects of it, through epistemological and empirical knowledge rather than giving up. But, the acceptance of partiality of truth and knowledge may be important, not forgetting Socrates' 'I know nothing.' Paradoxically, the humility of lack of knowledge and certainty may be better than the arrogance of being too certain. It is possible that those who try to assert their certainty are trying to convince themselves of this, in order to hide or gloss over their doubts and uncertainties.

Disagreement is always possible, whether rational or irrational, with or without grounds. Just ask flat-earthers and godists.

There were times, when Christendom was at its zenith, when skepticism (religious) meant horrific torture & certain death. The current iteration of religious persecution is Islam.

These days skepticism is the only thing that keeps you from being cheated/tortured/killed/worse!

The winds of change Jack, the winds of change!

We could return to the dark ages though. Americanistan (Christian Theocracy) is just a few decades away now that the religious nutcases know they can pull if off (re Roe vs. Wade revocation).

Anyway, to get right to the point, certainty tends to be more deletorious to our collective well-being than doubt.

Diagreement is always possible, whether rational or irrational, with grounds or groundlees. Just ask flat-earthers and godists. — 180 Proof

:up:

Risk may be important for making decisions personally and in aspects of life. It was part of the basis for thinking in the pandemic, in juggling and weighing up factors. When I was working in mental health care, policies and decisions about individuals was based on assessing risks. In particular, risks to self, especially suicide and risks to others, in the form of aggression or violence was central. It was not exact because no one knows an individual's innermost thoughts, but there were generic principles for this, especially based on a person's previous history of behaviour.

As I understand it, risk assessment is a widespread approach for decision, including risk assessments of building, such as in the events of fire. The approach of thinking about risks may be one of the most rational ways of thinking in the face of uncertainty.

I do appreciate living in the age where doubt and skepticism are openly expressed and valued. However, as a teenager; remember being told by religious friends that I I should not doubt religious 'truth', like doubting Thomas. But, after time and trespassing into different approaches to thought I could not hold on to 'blind faith', and maybe blind faith is a philosophical sin.