What can we know for sure?
First off, I apologize if this is not a forum for making longer posts or broader discussions; if so, feel free to delete this thread.
I’m writing this to get a non-skeptic perspective on truth. What can we know for certain? That is, what do we know or can know without any possibility for that knowledge to be incorrect?
The following is my take on this issue.
The truth of almost every assertion we make is shadowed by uncertainty. All conceivable shortcomings of our senses, memory and rationality leaves almost everything we perceive, think or believe about reality hopelessly uncertain; that inevitability is the human condition.
But, we have a glimmer of light left for us, fortunately... if you doubt everything uncertain, you are left with two unassailable truths that are both absolutely true and knowable... the fact of your existence right now (Descartes’ Cogito ergo sum) and the existence of your perceptions (qualia), also in the here and now.
However, if you try to logically build on those truths to extend certainty any further, you will fail... after all, once you’ve proved something to yourself, how can you be sure that your memory that you just proved it is accurate? Were you completely rational? This universal skepticism leaves all further philosophical inquiry moot.
Your only hope of escaping this dilemma is if there is someone out there with the powers of God; a divine being who has the reality-making power to go beyond the limits of the human condition.
I’m interested in and open to considering alternative takes, perspectives or views on this matter.
I’m writing this to get a non-skeptic perspective on truth. What can we know for certain? That is, what do we know or can know without any possibility for that knowledge to be incorrect?
The following is my take on this issue.
The truth of almost every assertion we make is shadowed by uncertainty. All conceivable shortcomings of our senses, memory and rationality leaves almost everything we perceive, think or believe about reality hopelessly uncertain; that inevitability is the human condition.
But, we have a glimmer of light left for us, fortunately... if you doubt everything uncertain, you are left with two unassailable truths that are both absolutely true and knowable... the fact of your existence right now (Descartes’ Cogito ergo sum) and the existence of your perceptions (qualia), also in the here and now.
However, if you try to logically build on those truths to extend certainty any further, you will fail... after all, once you’ve proved something to yourself, how can you be sure that your memory that you just proved it is accurate? Were you completely rational? This universal skepticism leaves all further philosophical inquiry moot.
Your only hope of escaping this dilemma is if there is someone out there with the powers of God; a divine being who has the reality-making power to go beyond the limits of the human condition.
I’m interested in and open to considering alternative takes, perspectives or views on this matter.
Comments (58)
Second: that god does not exist; if he existed he could not be known and if he was known he could not be expressed. It's not much use.
As for "belief"...mostly that is bullshit. "Belief" and "believe" are words people use to disguise "guess"...especially in the area of "the true nature of the REALITY of existence."
For instance:
"I 'believe' (in) God"...is the way most people say, "It is my blind guess is that at least one god exists."
"I 'believe' there are no gods" is the way most people say, "It is my blind guess that no gods exist."
In mathematics these certainties are known for certain inside their universe ("model"), which is never the physical universe but an abstract, Platonic construction. Hence, mathematics also does not offer certainties about the real world.
Quoting Frank Apisa
According to its standard definition, knowledge is itself also a belief:
Quoting Wikipedia on 'Justified true belief' (JTB)
We can't claim to know what it is that exists. Our experience and knowledge of conscious minds may be naive, mistaken, or a fabrication.
You can't be mistaken that you're conscious and have a mind. You could be wrong about the properties of your own mind, or about what, exactly, consciousness is, but you can't be wrong about the salient points: you have a conscious mind. Unless you want to torture the definitions of "consciousness" and "mind" into something that doesn't even resemble what anyone thinks of when they think of their conscious mind.
Philosophy often goes in that direction. You couldn't find one person in a thousand who cares about Goodman's new riddle of induction. It's mental masturbation. Much of philosophy is.
That is the definition of an unfalsifiable proposition, that is, without empirical meaning. Empty.
Descartes spoke of a proposition whose opposite was contradictory. For example: I think therefore I am. The problem is that, admitting that it is not a tautology, he could not go further. Well, he went further, but by cheating.
Therefore I supposed it was better to look for a less strong concept of indubitable. I don't know if it's possible. In practice, we consider it absolutely true that if you put your hand in boiling water you get burned. What makes that proposition unquestionable in practice?
Yes I agree that one, apparently, can't be mistaken that one is conscious and has a mind and that as an explanation it is generally sufficient. But this thread is about certainty.
So when it comes to certainty, one has to consider alternatives to that certainty, however irrational they may be. Merely their possibility means they negate that certainty.
In reality the human mind finds itself existing in a place surrounded and built upon impenetrable unknowns, including circumstances where logic fails us too. This being the case your assumption that consciousness and mind exist as we experience them and that this is certainly the case is vulnerable to criticism of the extent and relevance of human knowledge to reality.
However, every view is predicated or based on some knowable axiom or another.
(e.x. Even epistemological nihilism asserts that the only thing that can be "known" is that nothing can be known, so this is oxymoronic if you ask me).
If you can't be mistaken about something, doesn't that entail certainty?
Sure, but nobody's come up with anything since Descartes. I think he's right about this: we can't be wrong that we're thinking beings. I think that's an axiom we can safely hang our hats on.
It's not an assumption. How can I wrong about being conscious? Or having a mind? As Descartes points out, you need a mind in the first place to doubt you have one. And as far as consciousness goes, it seems obvious to me that that is also immune from doubt. Any philosophical argument that claims "you're not conscious" is a non-starter.
The undoubted truth is that if you think now you are "something" that thinks now. What happened before and what will come after are no longer undoubted truths.
But this is a philosophical problem that has long been overcome. It was an obsession of classical rationalism. What I propose is to understand the undoubted truths in terms of modern empiricism. Something less radical, but more useful.
From your experience, you can know a lot of things. Thoughts exist. Symbolic thought exists. Language exists. Math exists. Logic exists.
Any deductive argument you know leads to a necessary truth.
You know that you come across characters (e.g. human beings). And that they can respond to you and can do things you cannot predict. You know they come from somewhere. You know they can have intellectual conversations with you, even if it's just a character in a dream. You know the world you explore appears to be full of characters and history that you have to discover to know. You experience complex interactions with the world you perceive.
For example, we don't know what consciousness is, or at least how it comes to exist. We do know with certainty that we have an experience, which we call consciousness. Also we don't really know what I am, what, or who, is having the experience.
So we are certain of something, but there is little certainty of what exactly we are certain of.
I prefer "I think therefore there is something". Because it can be debatable what "I am" means.
This might be the only thing we can take as properly basic, though I'd be open to considering other things.
Quoting rikes
The 17th century enlightenment helped with the problem of our inherent irrationality by giving us a new epistemology to investigate the universe.
Dictionaries do not actually "define" words. They merely tell us how they are used.
I stand by my comment: "As for "belief"...mostly that is bullshit. "Belief" and "believe" are words people use to disguise "guess"...especially in the area of "the true nature of the REALITY of existence."
If you suppose me to be wrong...we can discuss it.
JtB -- knowledge as a Justified (true) Belief -- is a long story. Epistemology in general, i.e. the theory of knowledge, is a long story ...
Oh...that justified true belief shit is so 19th and 20th century.
When someone uses "I believe..." in a post to me...I usually ask what they mean by it. The nonsense that comes up is mind-boggling. And some people use it several times in one paragraph.
If you are saying, "My opinion is..." or "My guess is..." or "I want to insist that..." or "I estimate that..." or "My absolutely blind guess is..."...
...why not just say it that way...rather than disguise it with, "I believe...?"
Huh?
It is much older than that:
Quoting Wikipedia on where JtB comes from
The more precise date is 369 BCE:
Quoting Wikipedia on the Theaetetus dialogue
Yeah...the people of the 19th and 20th century still bought into the teachings of people who, for the most part, thought the Earth was a pancake flat object at the very center of the universe.
In the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess.
The more honest version of "I 'believe' (in) God"...is, "It is my blind guess that at least one god exists...and that god is the GOD I worship."
The more honest version of "I believe there are no gods"...is, "It is my blind guess that no gods exist.
Really think about it...and you will see I am correct.
I don't know, you wanna get rid of people using the word belief, but you write a lot of absolutely certain seeming textQuoting Frank Apisa
, that is without qualitifications. Perhaps the trick is to not say I believe, but just tell people how things are. Then one has evaded the categorizing of one's statements.
Quoting Frank Apisaand here we have, it seems, a kind of dismissal of people's thinking in two decades. Like, well, that means we can dismiss their thinking, case closed. Her implied.
So another strategy is, don't use 'I believe', but rather imply an argument and dismiss a couple of hundred years of thinking.
So, the two strategies, here at least, to avoid using the potentially misleading I believe, is to just state things are the case and to imply vast swathes of conclusions without supporting them.
In both strategies we avoid the word believe, so all is peachy.
Of course, people are often quite correct. They believe what they are saying, whether it is based on guesses or a significant batch of evidence. And they are kind enough, those who know the distinction, to be making it clear they do not 'know' what they are asserting is the case. But, yes, it is what they think is the case. And this correct use of the word is bad, since people have different epistemologies for arriving at beliefs, for some reason.
So they start off a conversation with what is likely a true statement: a belief they have about some facet or purported facet of reality. From there one can ask them 'on what grounds'? We all know that people believe things that are not the case or are believed in on what we consider the wrong grounds. But now we know their position.
Is there anyone who hears the phrase 'I believe' and assume that what comes next must be strongly supported information? I don't think so. I am never misled by this beginning, unless they are lying about what they believe - but that would hold for 'guesses' also, as a possibility. I don't feel like I have been told the slightest bit about the rigor of their epistemology in general or in this particular case. I do feel informed about what they believe. What they think is the case. And this is useful information. Or, if it isn't, it doesn't become more useful if they use the suggested alternative phrases.
I certainly don't feel compelled to bow down to the solidity of their epistemology because they used the word 'believe'. And they don't when encountering other beliefs, positions, opinions. It's letting us know what they have decided is the case. If I want to know the grounds, well, now we have a conversation on that.
Doesn't sound all that absolutely certain to me.
Perhaps you've got that "someone on the Internet is wrong" disease.
I"m told it is very bothersome. Is it?
"for the most part" is a qualification.
Perhaps you meant to write, "Without qualifications that meet MY standards."
Here is how I originally wanted to respond to this argument, if that is what it is:
Ahhh...okay. Ummm...yes. Or if you really do not like that...no.
I am willing to offer, maybe, if you prefer that.
That would have been smarmy...so I will forego it.
Instead...
...Coben...what are you saying?
My statement was: "In the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess."
Are you saying that is wrong; are you saying it is right; are you saying you agree or disagree.
What?
Well, you would first have to be familiar with the discussion that has been going on for at least since 369 BCE. Socrates was certainly asking all the right questions. He became even famous for that. In the context of JtB, the term "knowledge" is linked to the term "belief", i.e. knowledge is a particular type of belief.
Bullshit.
Knowledge and "belief" are two different things. And I am becoming more and more convinced that the words "believe" and "belief" should be banned in intelligent discussions.
In any case, it appears as though I am never going to get an answer to the question I have asked in several different forms.
Lemme know when you decide to answer it.
The reason why you are so arrogant, is the same as ever: runaway ignorance. Maybe you first want to read up on the theory of justification:
Quoting Wikipedia on the Theory of Justification
You do not seem to be familiar even with the very, very basics of epistemology, i.e. the theory of knowledge.
But this thread is not about that, it is about certainty, the certainty of reality. So jtb is irrelevant and we both have to rely on logic and a kind of thinking which ignores human issues, beliefs and ways of thinking.
This leaves me at the position expressed in this phrase. "I know, therefore there is something"
Thank you for your considerations of my intelligence and knowledge. I disagree with you about that, but I stand by what I have posted thus far.
Quoting Punshhh
Thank you, Punshhh.
The indiscriminate and careless use of "believe/belief" is annoying in most forums (fora), but in a forum devoted to philosophy, it goes way beyond annoying for me. That is the reason I raised the issue. Apparently the point is lost on those who prefer not to see it.
Quoting Punshhh
That is also where I am with regard to the Cogito, ergo sum suggestion, P. I am astonished it is not seen and acknowledged as readily and as widespread as it should be.
That puts you in conflict with very basic, standard epistemology.
It is certainly possible to criticize the JtB doctrine, like e.g. Gettier successfully did, but you cannot achieve that by merely calling it "bullshit". Alternatives to JtB are possible but the existence of such alternatives still does not turn standard epistemology into "bullshit".
So, yes, I also repeat my assessment of the remarks you have made on the standard foundations of epistemology: both arrogant and ignorant.
And I will repeat my assessment of your assessment. It is BULLSHIT. All of it!
(Except perhaps for the second "the" in your first sentence.)
That does not diminish in any way that calling the JtB doctrine "bullshit", makes you arrogant and ignorant. Furthermore, JtB is not my doctrine. Therefore, anybody with even just moderate knowledge on epistemology will simply have to objectively conclude the same as I did about you: arrogant and ignorant.
Exactly! This is pretty standard stuff since Gettier. But even Gettier pointed out that JTB was insufficient to establish knowledge; hence, Gettier cases.
If you want to think that I am arrogant and ignorant...
...and further want to think that others will agree with you...
...be my guest. I am sure it helps you cope with something...and I am all for you coping with whatever you have bothering you.
The world of documented knowledge has ended up with at least three standard knowledge-justification methods that all hark back to the JtB doctrine (there may be more methods):
What all documented knowledge has in common, is that its beliefs are justified from other beliefs. That is the gist of the JtB doctrine, which in all practical terms gets elaborated through standard knowledge-justification methods. Epistemology, i.e. the theory of knowledge, is therefore a critical thread throughout all documented knowledge.
So, yes, you are arrogant and ignorant in claiming that the JtB doctrine would be "bullshit".
As I said, if considering me to be arrogant and ignorant helps make your life more livable and enjoyable...please continue. I want you to be as happy and content as you can manage.
And "belief" is nothing more than accepting something without sufficient, unambiguous evidence. Any supposed JtB that enters a conversation about whether or not gods or ghosts or invisible things exist or not...is just plain blind guessing.
One can say, "I 'believe..." or "I truly 'believe'... or "I firmly 'believe'..."...
...and all one is doing is making guesses and refusing to acknowledge them as guesses.
The greater, more adamant the modification...the less willing the person making it is to acknowledge the "belief" is just a blind guess.
Well said. Existentially, ( see the book of Ecclesiastes) there are obvious limits to understanding things. Same with Cosmological paradox (and other phenomenon).
Since you sort of broad-brushed your OP, I will do the same by suggesting faith, hope and love.
Normally I would agree with you, but this thread is about certainty. So when you have certainty about an experience, what is it you are certain of?
It may be the result of a common gene that I just do not possess...or it may be that I am an idiot. But there are many things that I do not know for sure...and have no problem acknowledging that I do not know.
Posting on the Internet often leads to comments being made that look like certainty, but for the most part, they are not.
Well said Frank. It's pretty simple, yet seems esoteric to some if not many. Of course, that's one thing Existential philosophy taught us...among other things. Perhaps the so-called sin of pride rears its ugly head here.
Trying reading this by Plato... Allegory of the cave
The upshot of this is that it's a mistake to think that knowledge consists in immunity to error. In fact immunity to error only guarantees the absence of knowledge. Hence, the nature of knowledge is such that it always contains the logical possibility of error. A proposition that happens to be true could, in principle, have been false. A major theme of Wittgenstein's On Certainty is the kind of global scepticism implied by Hume's empiricism (which takes Cartesian assumptions to their logical and absurd conclusion), and central to his critique of that scepticism is KILPOD - knowledge implies the logical possibility of doubt.
We would also have to know what knowing is to say that there are things that we know and things that we don't. We must also know how to use language in order to represent the state-of-affairs of knowing that we know nothing for sure with scribbles on a screen.
You also know how to type and use a computer for you to be able to post this on an internet philosophy forum.
Both myself and G. E. Moore know that you will not submerge your naked hand into a pot of boiling oil. This is because it would severely burn your hand. I know this for sure. You are free to prove me wrong.