Is there anything we can know for sure?

Forums: Whatever, Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Is there anything we can know with complete accuracy?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 7 • Views: 2,761 • Replies: 33

No top replies

@Render,

Yes. We are certain of the fact that we cannot know all things.

0 Replies

@Render,

Render wrote:

Is there anything we can know for sure?

Only that you cannot know anything for sure.

0 Replies

@Render,

Quote:

Is there anything we can know with complete accuracy?

I am not sure.

0 Replies

@Render,

Rap

0 Replies

@Render,

Render wrote:

Is there anything we can know with complete accuracy?

Yes, that stupidity are endlessly.
You attack the problem in a wrong manner. It's about psycology, if you suffer from mental defect, like psycosis or skitzophrenia you will precive things in a distorted way.
Also if you can't exceed the psycopathbarrier you may also underestimate things.
..etc.

You ask ignorent questions, you should study some psycology and neurology, besides that, study real life, observe!

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

Could both me and you also be lacking in these areas or do we understand these things empirically?

1 Reply

@Render,

Render wrote:

Is there anything we can know with complete accuracy?

0+0=o

0 Replies

@Render,

Diversity.

1 Reply

@laughoutlood,

laughoutlood wrote:

Diversity.

true

1 Reply

@north,

or false

we haven"t decided

1 Reply

@laughoutlood,

laughoutlood wrote:

or false

we haven"t decided

why ?

0 Replies

Russell's Paradox--from set theory

Let S be a set consisting of x elements where x is not x. Suppose S is a subset of S ; then, by definition, S is a subset of not S . Likewise, if S is a subset of not S , then by definition S is a subset of S . Therefore, there's a contradiction.

IOW ``If the barber shaves all those who do not themselves shave, does he shave himself?''

Rap

1 Reply

@raprap,

raprap wrote:

Russell's Paradox--from set theory

Let S be a set consisting of x elements where x is not x. Suppose S is a subset of S ; then, by definition, S is a subset of not S . Likewise, if S is a subset of not S , then by definition S is a subset of S . Therefore, there's a contradiction.

IOW ``If the barber shaves all those who do not themselves shave, does he shave himself?''

Rap

yes

1 Reply

the difference between heat and cold

that without the sun this planet would be ice cold

1 Reply

@north,

Contradiction, the barber shaves someone who shaves himself--he shaves those who don't.

Rap

0 Replies

@north,

There is no physical thing as cold--heat is molecular energy, usually as motion.

So your statement should be 'without the energy from the sun, this planet would have less energy'

Rap

1 Reply

@Render,

Quote:

Is there anything we can know with complete accuracy?

Forget about the barber !

"Accuracy" is a relative term used in the context of physical measurement.
Hence "complete accuracy" is an oxymoron.

If you mean "complete certainty" then tends to imply logical results which follow from unproved axioms (Godel). Russells paradox is merely another nail in the coffin of the view that set-thoretic logic can be the basis for the "correspondence theory of truth".

If you mean "absolute truth", there is a lengthy ongoing thread on that subject.

.....and all of these beg the question of the meaning of "to know" !

0 Replies

@Render,

"Is there anything we can know with complete accuracy? "

I certainly know that if my Aunt had testicles he'd have been my uncle.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Could both me and you also be lacking in these areas or do we understand these things empirically?

You say this because you don't know anything of psycology, go read up on it, well ..neurology too!

0 Replies

Is there anything we can know for sure?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know