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

Amen to that! ;)

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.

Humility and the 'fact' that I cannot know truth in any way, only approach it in many ways. — Chet Hawkins

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.

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.

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

Do you think that you are that good a mind reader? I'm quite certain that you are not.

Sorry I was gone for a bit. The deceivers fooled me. I plugged a PC fan jacket into the wrong jumper because the label was displaced and not directly aside the right one. My rig's motherboard exploded as it was designed to by the Nazgul (servants of the One Ring). It was about to give up the ghost anyway. I have no idea how it held a charge like that. I am in process building a new machine.

Peace wants love, not war!

DM me if anyone knows of hot deals on motherboards/CPU/Chassis/DDR5 TY TY

Do you think that you are that good a mind reader? I'm quite certain that you are not. — wonderer1

I'm horribad at it. The clarity of my own world is simply never seen in others.

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

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.

Further, to demonstrate, we only believe we know what happened. If we describe an event, more and more we realize that what remains to truly understand what happened IS NOT limited. It CANNOT properly be limited. The limiting force of fear is COWARDICE. All he universe must be included. Perfection must be shown in the delivery of free will to the scenario, that happened. So, I am only confusing ... some people ... who believe in delusional limits where there are none.

I am NOT saying I am capable of transcending limits in the general case. But in the specific comparative case to, for example, your arguments, I am transcending that limit.

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

There is nothing but belief because knowing is not possible.

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.

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

I agree and that was a fairly lion's share portion of what my claim was.

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.

I am not holding my breath. Comforting lies are daily fare and happily pursued by many and most. But you know, lovers of wisdom have to try.

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

Yes, I agree with you here—the most significant and dangerous example of that being religious fundamentalism.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

you are treating your explanation as something of which you are certain, as something you know, giving only lip service to your doub — Banno

:up:

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

Can you know uncertainties?

Can you know uncertainties? — wonderer1

Since you cannot know certainties, uncertainties are right out! 'Nod's as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?'

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

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.

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

As I do your responses of this ilk in meaning.

That is to say, the deadly serious idea of accuracy is not being treated properly at all when we say we 'know' something. Colloquial foolishness notwithstanding, WE, lovers of wisdom, should do better. 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. Only a facetious person would do otherwise. And that facetious person is not me in this scenario.

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

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.

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

And now you are equating confidence with certainty. That is JUST yet another error.

Confidence is the anger based choice to STAND to all else and hold the line. When dealing with belief, which I acknowledge here and in every place before is where I am at with this idea, a person who speaks with dread confidence is only expressing their anger hold. That is NOT the foolishness of knowing. It is in fact yet another one of the paths to truth, the anger path, there being only three, fear, anger, and desire. Those are all my beliefs.

So, each of your points is wrong and all wrong based on the same type or quality of error, over-dependence on pragmatic short-cuts to truth. That is limited truth. That is actually delusional non-truth in every case. It is true (ha ha) that this effect does not make things, being, living, EASIER on us. It instead makes things appropriately harder. This is a BETTER way. It is more wise.

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

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.

We are not perfect. We cannot be objective. We are wrong in some way, infinite ways actually, even on little niggling event statements that we take in as 'true', a dangerous lie. That lie is only used to facilitate the short-cut, to prevent people from pondering on an on because time is short and the climb via evolution to perfection, ... hopefully, ... is hard and long and we need to have some awareness short cuts. But let's call them THAT honestly. That would be wise.

My statements are intended precisely to call this foolishness into question. A fact or knowledge, both, are only a subset of beliefs. — Chet Hawkins

I wouldn't use the word only (or mere). It's a subset.

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

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.

All sorts of categories can have as subsets, members that work much better than others.

There are chess players. Magus Carlsen is a chess player. He's not only a chess player or a mere chess player (the word 'only' her taken in a similar sense to 'mere.' But he is an individual subset of the set of chess players.

While there are bad dentists, I don't go with a toothache to prison guards or stock traders.

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

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.

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

If we have no knowledge, then by what standard could we assess the likelihood of something being true?

If we don't know what is true, and we don't even know what beliefs are justified, then what do we know, if anything, according to you?

I don't agree with you anyway, I think there many things I can know to be true, or at least can be certain are the case: namely everything I am presently experiencing and doing. Of past events I can only be as certain as I am of the accuracy of my memory, so confidence must diminish with the temporal distance of events.

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

But we do know things, all sorts of different things, often with good reason.

Science is not the world. Limiting your examples by presuming that science is the only, or even the best, way to determine truth will lead you astray.

You want a moral argument.

As I already pointed out, if all we have is belief, then there is no correcting ourselves. If there is only opinion, then one cannot be mistaken, for to be mistaken is to believe something that is not the case, not true. In the place of learning, there would only be changing one's opinion. If there is no difference between believing and knowing, one cannot cease to believe a lie and so know the truth.

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.

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.

If we have no knowledge, then by what standard could we assess the likelihood of something being true?

One’s theory of knowledge, just like truth, will be used to examine itself: it is necessarily circular.

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. See what I mean?

If you ask “how do we know what knowledge is?”, then same deal: you have to evaluate that from the perspective of your theory of knowledge.

It is not that we have no knowledge, it is that we only have probabilistic reasons to support the truth of things. There’s nothing particularly wrong with this: the alternative is absolute truth.

I think there many things I can know to be true, or at least can be certain are the case

The only way this negates my position, is if you could validly claim to it is absolutely true; and you can’t. The things you know, are based off of probability: all you are noting is a high probability.

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 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.

So this:

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

goes to that point. If I say it is raining my statement will be true if it is raining. If I see that it is raining, I can be certain that I am justified in saying that it is raining. So, my statement would correspond to the actuality, it would be true, I would know it to be true and that would count as knowledge. When it comes to past events I rely on memory, so I can't claim knowledge there because my memory may be faulty (and studies have shown that people's memories very often or even most often, are mistaken).

For me 'absolute knowledge' refers to knowledge which is true independent of any and all contexts. I don't believe such knowledge is possible, — Janus

Gang gang.

Cock or two.

Cock or two. — Janus

???

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.

The Gang-gang is a kind of Australian cockatoo. Them dancin' cockatoos is amusin'—better than any fuckin' cat video in my book!

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

I don't believe in any Platonic realm either, but I do believe in the mystical experience, meaning I believe that it is an altered state of consciousness that seems generally to carries with it a sense of elevated experience and understanding—the problems come when people try to use it to prove some metaphysical claim or other. I prefer to draw no conclusions in that regard.

Like you, I'm happy to live with uncertainty, with not-knowing. And I agree with you about the existence of a mind-independent actuality. I have no need of a definition of truth either, I feel as though I know what it is wordlessly, so to speak, and no need to attempt any more fine-grained analysis

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 think what we know is restricted to what is right in front of us at any time, and what we have experienced to the extent that we can rely on our memories and what we are able to do.

Beyond that it's all more or less justified belief, with the assessment of justification being reliant on what we do know if it relies on anything at all more substantial than merely a feeling of being more or less certain.

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

That's intriguing. Especially the 'elevated experince and understanding' part of it. What would be an example of this? Are you thinking enlightenment... gurus and such?

, , all of this speculation and discussion takes place in a context that involves there being language and other people with which to chat.

Midgley, amongst others, points to that. See Rings & Books

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.

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

Could be. Certainty seems to be a kind of pragmatic continuum. I am certain Bob Hawke was a Labor Prime Minister in the 1980's. I am not certain if he was a good prime minister. That kind of thing. But as soon as we get to questions of gods or metaphysical extravagances such as 'enlightenment' or mystical experiences, certainty seems absent.