Amen to that! ;)The driving need for certainty is other people's foolish fear.
— Chet Hawkins
This is certainly true, as I've recently found out in going through one commenter's religious feelings here. Their need for certainty has them forego even Empirical considerations. — AmadeusD
Humility and the 'fact' that I cannot know truth in any way, only approach it in many ways.What leads you to believe there is a "real you" over and above, beyond or apart from the you that you are familiar with? — Janus
Humility and the 'fact' that I cannot know truth in any way, only approach it in many ways. — Chet Hawkins
Even if (perhaps especially if) you assess certain groups (scientists, intellectuals) you will narrow that spread because all of them are closing ranks as a rep of the group DESPITE personal feelings or beliefs or 'known (ha ha) facts' to the contrary, because they would rather do that than let chaos get a toehold further into their protected spaces. — Chet Hawkins
I'm horribad at it. The clarity of my own world is simply never seen in others.Do you think that you are that good a mind reader? I'm quite certain that you are not. — wonderer1
Confusing you maybe. Events are not truth. They may true, as in 'This happened'. The laws of 'Truth' Involved is what we are discussing, not events or truth value.But you do know that you just responded to my previous post, and that it's true that you did. What possible reason could you have to doubt that? It seems to me that you are confusing yourself unnecessarily. — Janus
There is nothing but belief because knowing is not possible.When it comes to metaphysical matters, I agree that nothing is known or knowable. We cannot know truth in any absolute sense. It is in the metaphysical domain that belief reigns supreme. — Janus
I agree and that was a fairly lion's share portion of what my claim was.Thanks for trying, but I'm not seeing any actual arguments to recommend your position, so I remain unconvinced. I think we agree that there is no absolute truth at all to be had, so that is some commonality at least. — Janus
The essential issue is that the word 'knowing' is used to invoke delusional certainty, just like 'facts' and even the term 'certainty' itself. — Chet Hawkins
Dude, check out my posts on page three. I think I've set out enough to be getting on with.You claiming this with no explanation at all shows the depth of your intent or lack of it. — Chet Hawkins
I'll take that argument to be facetious.That has no bearing on what we are discussing, except that knowledge is the same. Ergo knowledge is only belief. — Chet Hawkins
The essential issue is that the word 'knowing' is used to invoke delusional certainty, just like 'facts' and even the term 'certainty' itself. To be more correct, we all need to stop using them that way. — Chet Hawkins
Since you cannot know certainties, uncertainties are right out! 'Nod's as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?'Can you know uncertainties? — wonderer1
Apologies, yes. As you might have surmised I DID NOT read all the pages that accumulated in my absence. That is no guarantee though that there is the answer there. I doubt that it is there, and for reasons. Some reasons that border upon what I will mention again here in this post.You claiming this with no explanation at all shows the depth of your intent or lack of it.
— Chet Hawkins
Dude, check out my posts on page three. I think I've set out enough to be getting on with. — Banno
As I do your responses of this ilk in meaning.That has no bearing on what we are discussing, except that knowledge is the same. Ergo knowledge is only belief.
— Chet Hawkins
I'll take that argument to be facetious. — Banno
Your adjective, 'true' is analogous to 'knowing' more so than to a measured awareness. True has that logical 1 or 0 finality to it, an error (in all cases). A floating maybe is more, not less, accurate. And that statement is ... true. Totally not being facetious at all. I can have fun writing something without it's being facetious.Here's where I think we stand. You said that knowledge is just belief. I've pointed out that in addition to being believed, the things we know also have to be true. — Banno
And now you are equating confidence with certainty. That is JUST yet another error.You might come back by asserting that in that case we only have beliefs, and do not know anything; this because we don't know what is true and what isn't. My reply to that is that we do know some things - examples given previously; and that further you are treating your explanation as something of which you are certain, as something you know, giving only lip service to your doubt. — Banno
No, these are disparate issues. As previously discussed in full. Truth is only able to inform choice. Belief is a form of choice. There is no choice we can make that is not just belief.That would be much better than the alternate account, asserting in the face of evidence to the contrary that there is no difference between belief and truth. — Banno
I wouldn't use the word only (or mere). It's a subset.My statements are intended precisely to call this foolishness into question. A fact or knowledge, both, are only a subset of beliefs. — Chet Hawkins
Yes, groups can do this. On the other hand, given their methodologies, I trust the information I get from some groups and some individuals more than others. I'm not exactly sure what you meant in the two parts I quoted here.Even if (perhaps especially if) you assess certain groups (scientists, intellectuals) you will narrow that spread because all of them are closing ranks as a rep of the group DESPITE personal feelings or beliefs or 'known (ha ha) facts' to the contrary, because they would rather do that than let chaos get a toehold further into their protected spaces. — Chet Hawkins
Knowledge requires that it is true, and not just a belief. Now, whether or not it is true is probabilistic, so it could turn out that what we think is true isn't; but that doesn't negate the importance of knowledge (i.e., true, justified, belief) vs. belief. — Bob Ross
Likewise, a belief could be justified, insofar as the probability of it being true is sufficient to warrant a belief, but not considered knowledge; because the probability of it being true isn't high enough.
Knowledge, to me, denotes sufficient confidence (credence) in it being true, given its probability/plausibility of being true. — Bob Ross
That is to say, the deadly serious idea of accuracy is not being treated properly at all when we say we 'know' something. — Chet Hawkins
From what you say it follows that we don't know that we know. If knowledge must be true and everything I think is true may not be, then I cannot be confident that I possess knowledge, even though I may, despite not knowing it or even being able to know it, possess knowledge.
If we have no knowledge, then by what standard could we assess the likelihood of something being true?
I think there many things I can know to be true, or at least can be certain are the case
You are confusing absolute knowledge with knowledge.
If knowledge is a justified belief that has a high enough probability of being true, then you can know you know X IFF you have a justified belief that has a high enough probability of being true that X.
All you have noted, is that you can’t be absolutely certain that it is true; which is not a qualification of knowledge. — Bob Ross
For example, take correspondence theory of truth: what makes the correspondance theory of truth true? If one accepts that theory, then they would say: it is true IFF it corresponds with reality. — Bob Ross
For me 'absolute knowledge' refers to knowledge which is true independent of any and all contexts. I don't believe such knowledge is possible, so I am not confusing ordinary knowledge, which is knowledge relative to contexts, with that.
If you cannot be certain what the probability of something being true is, then you would be operating with a mere belief to support your conclusion that your original belief was justified. An infinite regress ensues.
Absolute certainty is possible within contexts. I can be absolutely certain of what I am doing and experiencing right now. If I look outside and I see that it is raining, I can be absolutely certain that it is raining, or if I see a caterpillar climbing a tree, I can be absolutely certain that there is a caterpillar climbing that tree while I am seeing it. But all of such certainty is within the context of the collective representation we call "the world", it has no application beyond that. — Janus
I've also generally held that there is no absolute certainty. And no realm where certainty or truth lives (in the Platonic sense). But I sometimes wonder what is served by adding the word 'absolute'. Isn't certainty finally just a human word, an artifact of language use and convention which can mean various things depending on context?
There are things we can call true because to deny them would result in catastrophe - eating arsenic, jumping from a plane without a parachute, etc. Which unfortunately for my antifoundationalist tendencies suggests that truth (certainly in some instances) is not merely a product of human construction but is grounded in an objective reality that exists independently of our beliefs and perceptions.
On the positive side, having a definition of knowledge or truth is of almost no use in my day-to-day life, so there is that. All I need to know about truth exists in convention, usage or domains of intersubjective agreement. — Tom Storm
It is MORE accurate in every way to claim some dearth of awareness by forgoing the term 'knowledge' and similar absolutes that partake of perfection by implication. — Chet Hawkins
I believe that it is an altered state of consciousness that seems generally to carries with it a sense of elevated experience and understanding — Janus
Perhaps the problem is not, not being able to find "absolute certainty", but the framing of these issues in terms of "absolute certainty". Garbage in, garbage out. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.