I agree, absolute certainty=dogmatism. By the same token new atheists' fervor is tantamount to religious dogmatism as far as I'm concerned. Hence, the only honest rational stance apart from skepticism is agnosticism but how can one's actions be dependent on persistent doubting? Faith, or beliefs in general, fill that void imo and help people move through their lives otherwise infested with uncertainty.
So, it's a balancing act. While you can never be 100% certain about anything, I don't see that we need to be. The balance comes into play when we think about how much uncertainty is okay before we need to withhold judgement.
In most cases, uncertainty stems from not being exposed to information, as opposed to humanity not having the information. Being informed, I guess, is a value judgement in that people will inform themselves if they're interested in being informed.
If I can't be certain of anything, how can I be certain that no one else can be absolutely certain of something? I can't think of any way that this might be possible, but since I can't be certain then there might be some way of achieving certainty that I've overlooked.
It's not that you can't be at all certain. I'm only saying that you can't be 100% certain about anything. In most cases, you really don't need to be 100% certain to take action or align yourself with a specific position. Reasonable certainty is usually enough.
This is why I'm saying that all positions should be held tentatively. You can't be absolutely certain, but that doesn't mean one should abandon any search for knowledge because of that.
@TheSkepticalAtheist I suspect that you're right, but how can I be sure that no one else has found a way to be 100% certain? If I held that position then I'd be claiming to be 100% sure that no one can be 100% sure which would be self-refuting.
That's an interesting point that I haven't really considered. I suppose it's inherent in the logic of the situation. I mean, it's really in the same vein as the situation I set up in the video... that to assert 100% certainty assumes absolute knowledge of the question at hand, which cannot be had. Does that make sense? It seems sufficient to explain my position, but I could be wrong.
@TheSkepticalAtheist Your reasoning seems good to me, but is absolute knowledge the only way to achieve 100% certainty? I think so, but perhaps someone else has found another way that I haven't thought of. I can't deny the possibility.
Probably most people will agree with you so it won't be an issue in discussions of knowledge. Or at least if someone claims 100% certainty then there's probably no point in continuing the discussion unless he can tell how he acquired this certainty.
I think what is interesting is that even by exploring this question, we're engaging in the very same thing that I'm talking about. By merely asking the question, "Is there another way?" We cannot be certain. And, until someone explores every single possible permutation of assessing knowledge and obtaining certainty, we can never know for certain whether or not there IS another way.
@TheSkepticalAtheist I like to use a similar argument on the optimists who claim that nothing is impossible. I ask them if it's possible to describe an impossible task. That's just for my own amusement, though.
There is no such thing as obtaining all the data, or finding all the answers.With life, be it in a flower, a jellyfish, a human being, comes evolution.DNA itself changes, evolves a bit every few million years.Time alone wouldn't allow something to stay the same forever, transformation is inevitable.The answer to a particular question never stays the same, nor does the question itself.
Scientific Actualism definitely includes an abandonment of certainty,however I think your example of the argument from ignorance where someone can't have taken into account an infinite number of other possibilities is the kind of extreme skepticism that Popper advocated,which I think is a mistake. Knowledge isn't gained in a vacuum devoid of any reference points on which we form our conclusions. A round earth is much more correct than a flat one,even though both a wrong,for example.
Right. I agree that a round Earth is more correct than a flat one. But, like I was saying about the illogical propositions @philstilwell mentioned, certainty of falsehood is much easier to deduce than certainty of truth.
I think that there is a sliding scale of certainty which can never reach 100% in terms of assessing truth. You cannot have a "square triangle" in your pocket because it fails to satisfy even basic logical criteria. You can be 100% certain that it is false.
Like I said in the video, there are things which have a higher degree of certainty, and what comes along with that certainty is a greater burden on anyone wishing to discredit that idea to come up with a greater amount of evidence to the contrary.
I think that I would still feel comfortable saying that we can't know truth with 100% certainty.
I wouldn't substitute consistency for certainty for the simple fact that throughout one's search for truth, the one thing that should remain consistent is the method one uses to assess truth - namely the scientific method and a skeptical attitude.
I guess I wasn't clear on what you meant. You'd mentioned substituting consistency instead of certainty. I wasn't really sure what you meant in terms of context, what you were implying.
Thanks. I'm not 100% happy with how it came out. I found it difficult putting these thoughts together... I think it's probably because of the 10-minute video time limit. I wasn't really sure how to do this concisely.
I probably could have been a little more clear in some places, but I guess now I know better for next time.
I think it's possible to know that something is certainly false, as is the case with the "square triangle." What is more difficult is knowing something is certainly true.
In the case with the illogical proposition of the square triangle, certain criteria which would make that proposition true have not been met. But, to say that you have a triangle in your pocket would be more difficult to prove, I suppose. It's an interesting question, and one I'll have to give some thought to.
I think I'd also like to add that the domain of the question is very important. If you were to say that you had a triangle in your pocket, the question is limited to the space within your pocket. You could be relatively certain as to the case whether you did or did not have a triangle in your pocket.
If you're speaking of larger questions like the existence of God, the domain is essentially infinite. At this point, certainty can only take you so far.
Thanks for the response. When it comes to many proposed gods, I find their definitions quite proximate to the incoherency of square triangles, and feel comfortable dismissing them out of hand. I'm more careful about dismissing an Einsteinian god.
See, now I'm curious because I think I want to explore this difference between what makes it easy to assess falsity as opposed to the difficulty in establishing truth.
I agree, absolute certainty=dogmatism. By the same token new atheists' fervor is tantamount to religious dogmatism as far as I'm concerned. Hence, the only honest rational stance apart from skepticism is agnosticism but how can one's actions be dependent on persistent doubting? Faith, or beliefs in general, fill that void imo and help people move through their lives otherwise infested with uncertainty.
pawsoned 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TheSkepticalAtheist
@pawsoned
So, it's a balancing act. While you can never be 100% certain about anything, I don't see that we need to be. The balance comes into play when we think about how much uncertainty is okay before we need to withhold judgement.
In most cases, uncertainty stems from not being exposed to information, as opposed to humanity not having the information. Being informed, I guess, is a value judgement in that people will inform themselves if they're interested in being informed.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 month ago
I agree with this video!!! David!!!
CaptainNemoful1 10 months ago
Wow! What an excellent video! More people need to hear this. Thanks for making this video man.
MrCrustyelbows 1 year ago 2
@MrCrustyelbows
Thanks, man. I really appreciate the support.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
One thing is certain, the biggest proponents of certainty, are religious believers. I'm not absolutely certain of that though. lol
KenChamberlain 1 year ago
Anything past solipsism requires faith to some extent.
terminaldeity 1 year ago
@terminaldeity
And I definitely am not a solipsist. lol
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
If I can't be certain of anything, how can I be certain that no one else can be absolutely certain of something? I can't think of any way that this might be possible, but since I can't be certain then there might be some way of achieving certainty that I've overlooked.
Chuck1863 1 year ago
@Chuck1863
It's not that you can't be at all certain. I'm only saying that you can't be 100% certain about anything. In most cases, you really don't need to be 100% certain to take action or align yourself with a specific position. Reasonable certainty is usually enough.
This is why I'm saying that all positions should be held tentatively. You can't be absolutely certain, but that doesn't mean one should abandon any search for knowledge because of that.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist I suspect that you're right, but how can I be sure that no one else has found a way to be 100% certain? If I held that position then I'd be claiming to be 100% sure that no one can be 100% sure which would be self-refuting.
Chuck1863 1 year ago
@Chuck1863
That's an interesting point that I haven't really considered. I suppose it's inherent in the logic of the situation. I mean, it's really in the same vein as the situation I set up in the video... that to assert 100% certainty assumes absolute knowledge of the question at hand, which cannot be had. Does that make sense? It seems sufficient to explain my position, but I could be wrong.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Your reasoning seems good to me, but is absolute knowledge the only way to achieve 100% certainty? I think so, but perhaps someone else has found another way that I haven't thought of. I can't deny the possibility.
Probably most people will agree with you so it won't be an issue in discussions of knowledge. Or at least if someone claims 100% certainty then there's probably no point in continuing the discussion unless he can tell how he acquired this certainty.
Chuck1863 1 year ago
@Chuck1863
I think what is interesting is that even by exploring this question, we're engaging in the very same thing that I'm talking about. By merely asking the question, "Is there another way?" We cannot be certain. And, until someone explores every single possible permutation of assessing knowledge and obtaining certainty, we can never know for certain whether or not there IS another way.
Very interesting...
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist I like to use a similar argument on the optimists who claim that nothing is impossible. I ask them if it's possible to describe an impossible task. That's just for my own amusement, though.
Chuck1863 1 year ago
Excellent video. I pretty much agree with what you said.
KenChamberlain 1 year ago
@KenChamberlain
Thanks.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
There is no such thing as obtaining all the data, or finding all the answers.With life, be it in a flower, a jellyfish, a human being, comes evolution.DNA itself changes, evolves a bit every few million years.Time alone wouldn't allow something to stay the same forever, transformation is inevitable.The answer to a particular question never stays the same, nor does the question itself.
Frieza1999 1 year ago
@Frieza1999
Well said.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
Scientific Actualism definitely includes an abandonment of certainty,however I think your example of the argument from ignorance where someone can't have taken into account an infinite number of other possibilities is the kind of extreme skepticism that Popper advocated,which I think is a mistake. Knowledge isn't gained in a vacuum devoid of any reference points on which we form our conclusions. A round earth is much more correct than a flat one,even though both a wrong,for example.
Aaron518 1 year ago
@Aaron518
Right. I agree that a round Earth is more correct than a flat one. But, like I was saying about the illogical propositions @philstilwell mentioned, certainty of falsehood is much easier to deduce than certainty of truth.
I think that there is a sliding scale of certainty which can never reach 100% in terms of assessing truth. You cannot have a "square triangle" in your pocket because it fails to satisfy even basic logical criteria. You can be 100% certain that it is false.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@Aaron518
Like I said in the video, there are things which have a higher degree of certainty, and what comes along with that certainty is a greater burden on anyone wishing to discredit that idea to come up with a greater amount of evidence to the contrary.
I think that I would still feel comfortable saying that we can't know truth with 100% certainty.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
How about just slipping in consistency instead of certainty?
stubbornVN 1 year ago
@stubbornVN
I wouldn't substitute consistency for certainty for the simple fact that throughout one's search for truth, the one thing that should remain consistent is the method one uses to assess truth - namely the scientific method and a skeptical attitude.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Isn't that what I suggested; consistency of assessment?
stubbornVN 1 year ago
@stubbornVN
I guess I wasn't clear on what you meant. You'd mentioned substituting consistency instead of certainty. I wasn't really sure what you meant in terms of context, what you were implying.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist consistency of assessment.
stubbornVN 1 year ago
@stubbornVN
Yes. I would agree with that. Abandoning certainty with the idea of consistency of assessment as the goal.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist Great vid (:
stubbornVN 1 year ago
@stubbornVN
Thanks. I'm not 100% happy with how it came out. I found it difficult putting these thoughts together... I think it's probably because of the 10-minute video time limit. I wasn't really sure how to do this concisely.
I probably could have been a little more clear in some places, but I guess now I know better for next time.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
Well said.
philstilwell 1 year ago
But I am curious how you treat the subset of illogical propositions such as "I have a square triangle in my pocket"?
philstilwell 1 year ago
@philstilwell
I think it's possible to know that something is certainly false, as is the case with the "square triangle." What is more difficult is knowing something is certainly true.
In the case with the illogical proposition of the square triangle, certain criteria which would make that proposition true have not been met. But, to say that you have a triangle in your pocket would be more difficult to prove, I suppose. It's an interesting question, and one I'll have to give some thought to.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@philstilwell
I think I'd also like to add that the domain of the question is very important. If you were to say that you had a triangle in your pocket, the question is limited to the space within your pocket. You could be relatively certain as to the case whether you did or did not have a triangle in your pocket.
If you're speaking of larger questions like the existence of God, the domain is essentially infinite. At this point, certainty can only take you so far.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@philstilwell
Thank you.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago
@TheSkepticalAtheist
Thanks for the response. When it comes to many proposed gods, I find their definitions quite proximate to the incoherency of square triangles, and feel comfortable dismissing them out of hand. I'm more careful about dismissing an Einsteinian god.
philstilwell 1 year ago
@philstilwell
See, now I'm curious because I think I want to explore this difference between what makes it easy to assess falsity as opposed to the difficulty in establishing truth.
TheSkepticalAtheist 1 year ago