Why do people care about absolute certainty?

Quote:

Actually, it was a very clear way of saying that I am not certain...and will not assert that I am.

Here you have it folks: someone who is uncertain, despite all we know about physics, as to whether light travels faster than sound.

Quote:

If someone says, "I am certain there are no gods involved in the REALITY of existence"...that is no different from saying, "I am absolutely certain there are no gods involved in the REALITY of existence."

I think you are trying to create a problem...for which you will suggest you have a solution.

It's cute. Young people need that kind of thing to feel good about themselves.

Problem: people who get anxious because they can't be absolutely certain their life isn't an illusion. I've met people who've lost sleep over this.

Solution: fallibilism.

Nothing odd about that buddy.

Look up "honesty", Bloc...and try to practice some of it.

Quote:

...Oh the irony

Quote:

I did not say that at all. I said that "if we define bachelors as unmarried males"...then by definition, all bachelors are unmarried males.

Yet when I asked

Quote:

Nice find! But I'll just swap them around and say:

all bachelors are unmarried men.

Are you certain now?

...You replied:

Quote:

Absolutely certain!

So, yes. You did say that and now you're lying.

And I guess you didn't reply to our other contradictions because you you've dug yourself too deep. Your thought on this subject matter is too confused. Too incoherent. And you know it

I don't know that the debate is particularly constructive, but I have to agree with frank. You have chosen to redefine the word "certain."

I understand the point you are making (at least I think I do) but it may be better expressed using "reasonably certain" and "absolutely certain," this still involves manipulation of the definition of "certain" but it might get frank off your back.

Now it makes sense why your thought seems so confused.

You're under the perception I'm some pesky atheist with some hidden agenda in regards to the god debate.

Frankly, I don't care about god in this discussion. It's a purely epidemiological issue.

Here's some background reading if you want to get some knowledge on the topic and hopefully make some insightful arguments.

Quote:

Munchhausen trilemma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Brain in vat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_vat

...And my position to solve the above conundrums, fallibilism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism

Interesting.

Please tell us about the matters that are keeping people awake nights because they cannot determine if they are certain or absolutely certain.

I already have knowledge on the topic

Quote:

Interesting.

Please tell us about the matters that are keeping people awake nights because they cannot determine if they are certain or absolutely certain.

Not knowing if their world and everything they thought was true is actually an illusion. That's what keeps them up at night, since they can't be absolutely certain their world is not an illusion.

Quote:

I already have knowledge on the topic

Okay, then what's your solution to the Munchhausen trilemma good sir? Surely anyone who claims to have knowledge on the topic of epistemology would have some meaningful opinion about the Munchhausen trilemma, since it's one of the contemporary issues modern epistemology is faced with. I eagerly await your response.

There is absolutely NO WAY whatever that anyone can be certain that the world is not an illusion.

Await it all you want, Bloc. But why anyone would bring that question to an Internet forum that regularly handles questions about how best to break the news to Mom that she is not as good a lay as Sis...which Dad backs up...is beyond me.

Stop with the nonsense, Bloc.

Man up.

URL: http://able2know.org/reply/post-5680732

I already have knowledge on the topic

questions about how best to break the news to Mom that she is not as good a lay as Sis...which Dad backs up...

Your suggestion that there is a difference between being certain and being absolutely certain was childish...and expanding it to include other nonsense does not make it less childish.

Quote:

There is absolutely NO WAY whatever that anyone can be certain that the world is not an illusion.

Which is why people lose sleep, which is the problem.
Which is why people should think it's silly to think that way, which is the solution I've been proposing.

What's your solution to the problem, Frank?

Quote:

Await it all you want, Bloc. But why anyone would bring that question to an Internet forum that regularly handles questions about how best to break the news to Mom that she is not as good a lay as Sis...which Dad backs up...is beyond me.

Stop with the nonsense, Bloc.

Man up.

URL: http://able2know.org/reply/post-5680732

So before you claimed:

Quote:

I already have knowledge on the topic

...But it now appears you're alien to even the basic terminology and arguments used in this topic. You have thus resorted to calling the topic 'nonsense' and too complex for the forum, which is more suited to answering questions such as:

Quote:

questions about how best to break the news to Mom that she is not as good a lay as Sis...which Dad backs up...

Way to degrade A2K, Frank. Surely that says something about someone with 28k posts in the said forum?

Quote:

Your suggestion that there is a difference between being certain and being absolutely certain was childish...and expanding it to include other nonsense does not make it less childish.

No, but staying up at night because the world might be an illusion is childish nonsense. Can we agree on this?

There is absolutely NO WAY whatever that anyone can be certain that the world is not an illusion.

In any case, you are attempting a diffusion here. You realize your original thoughts are absurd...and you want to divert from them.

Go back to your original post...and defend it...rather than making nonsense up and attempting to get me to defend that nonsense.

I'm happy with 'reasonably certain'. But what I must stress on this issue is that they're just words. What's not important is the words I'm using, but the meaning of them in this context. I agree that 'absolute certainty' and 'certainty' has no intrinsic different when seen through a non-contextual linguistic lens. But here I'm tackling epidemiological issues such as:

How do we know what we know?
How can we be certain we know what we know?

For purposes of the discussion, I have thus coined the terms, 'absolute certainty' (that which it is impossible to doubt), with 'certainty' (that which it is silly to doubt). If I didn't define them as such, I would have to give context to the word 'certainty' every time I use it. And that would be confusing and repetitive.

We can agree that staying up at night because the world might be an illusion is childish nonsense.

I would simply stop pretending there is a problem. The only reason you think there is a problem seems to be because you came up with the "solution" of asserting that there is a difference between "certain" and "absolutely certain."

There is no problem...there is no need for a "solution", Bloc.

Quote:

There is absolutely NO WAY whatever that anyone can be certain that the world is not an illusion.

And why is it not a problem that some people are worried by this?

Quote:

In any case, you are attempting a diffusion here. You realize your original thoughts are absurd...and you want to divert from them.

Go back to your original post...and defend it...rather than making nonsense up and attempting to get me to defend that nonsense.

Nope. I still defend them. I'm just bored of your confusing and incoherent account of how you can be certain 'all bachelors are unmarried males' by arbitrarily incorporating 'qualifiers'.

Refer to this post of mine if it clears anything up:

Quote:

I'm happy with 'reasonably certain'. But what I must stress on this issue is that they're just words. What's not important is the words I'm using, but the meaning of them in this context. I agree that 'absolute certainty' and 'certainty' has no intrinsic different when seen through a non-contextual linguistic lens. But here I'm tackling epidemiological issues such as:

How do we know what we know?
How can we be certain we know what we know?

For purposes of the discussion, I have thus coined the terms, 'absolute certainty' (that which it is impossible to doubt), with 'certainty' (that which it is silly to doubt). If I didn't define them as such, I would have to give context to the word 'certainty' every time I use it. And that would be confusing and repetitive.

And finally.

Quote:

We can agree that staying up at night because the world might be an illusion is childish nonsense.

Quote:

I would simply stop pretending there is a problem. The only reason you think there is a problem seems to be because you came up with the "solution" of asserting that there is a difference between "certain" and "absolutely certain."

There is no problem...there is no need for a "solution", Bloc.

I think we could be eventually getting somewhere here. Why is the possibility of the world and all the truths we thought we truth being an illusion, not a problem to you?

I submit that 'absolute certainty' is a functional redundancy, and that certainty implies absolutism.
Empirical or epistemological certainty, on the other hand, is falsifiable and therefore relative, the accompanying adjective serving as a limit.

I should add that certainty is often defined by the beholder.

I suggest that "certainty" apparently ALWAYS is defined by the beholder, Neo...which is its fatal flaw.

I think I said earlier that the feeling of certainty is what we usually seek. In our metaphysical philosophical moments we might seek "absolute certainty" which to me is an idle pursuit. In practical terms what we should pursue is an extremely high degree of probablity.