Is uncertainty certain?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

mark noble
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 10:16 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;163449 wrote:
1. I didn't say you were weird. Not at all. You have to read more carefully.

2. Do I know infallibly and without even the barest possibility of error? Of course not. To err is human.
Do I know in the ordinary fallible sense of "know"? Of course I do. And so do you. We are conducting this conversation in English, aren't we?

Yes, I often know that I am not dreaming. And so do you.

How do I know? Well, it is very rare that the issue even comes up, so there is no positive reason to doubt I am awake and conscious. When there is (so rarely) I check in one way or another.


Hi Ken,

I didn't say that you said I was weird. I merely stated that we all are, to some degree.
You have to read more carefully.

I am not saying that we ARE dreaming, only that we cannot prove that we are not dreaming. I have no reason, either, to doubt that I am actually awake.
But I cannot prove this, because my intelligence and perception are, indeed, fallible.

Thank you Ken, fare well.

Mark...
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 04:02 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;163422 wrote:
Can we, quantity and properties of unknown realms considered, be indisputably definite that anything is definitely impossible?
Sorry, I dont understand the question.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 06:08 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;164391 wrote:
Sorry, I dont understand the question.


Hi Ughaibu,




Quote:
Originally Posted by mark noble http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
Can we, quantity and properties of unknown realms considered, be indisputably definite that anything is definitely impossible?

Sorry, I dont understand the question.


Which bit?

Thank you, and journey well.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 07:41 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;164391 wrote:
Sorry, I dont understand the question.


I am not. I would be a lot sorrier if you understood the question.

---------- Post added 05-15-2010 at 10:03 AM ----------

mark noble;163467 wrote:



I am not saying that we ARE dreaming, only that we cannot prove that we are not dreaming. I have no reason, either, to doubt that I am actually awake.
But I cannot prove this, because my intelligence and perception are, indeed, fallible.

Thank you Ken, fare well.

Mark...


If your reason for not being able to prove that you are not dreaming is that your intelligence and perception are fallible, then I would suppose that you cannot prove anything else either. For example, that you were born, or that you had patents.

It seems to me that the consequence of that would be that your not being able to prove you are no dreaming is not such a big deal. After all, what is that inability to prove compared with your inability to prove you were born, or that you had parents? Nothing much. Furthermore, what I would take away from your inability to prove that you aren't dreaming, just as your inability to prove anything else for the reasons you just gave (intelligence and perception are fallible) is that one can know things he cannot prove. Since it seems to me that I am far surer I know that I was born, or I had parents, or, for that matter, that I am not dreaming when I am awake, than I could possibly be sure that I don't know and that I need to prove these things to know them.

See what I have in mind,? If your argument is that I don't know because I cannot prove, then my counter-argument is that since I do know, and since I cannot prove, I don't have to prove in order to know. Notice, however, that for the sake of argument, that I am agreeing with you that we can neither prove that we were born, nor that we had parents, nor that when we are awake that we are not dreaming.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 10:19 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164583 wrote:
I am not. I would be a lot sorrier if you understood the question.

---------- Post added 05-15-2010 at 10:03 AM ----------



If your reason for not being able to prove that you are not dreaming is that your intelligence and perception are fallible, then I would suppose that you cannot prove anything else either. For example, that you were born, or that you had patents.

It seems to me that the consequence of that would be that your not being able to prove you are no dreaming is not such a big deal. After all, what is that inability to prove compared with your inability to prove you were born, or that you had parents? Nothing much. Furthermore, what I would take away from your inability to prove that you aren't dreaming, just as your inability to prove anything else for the reasons you just gave (intelligence and perception are fallible) is that one can know things he cannot prove. Since it seems to me that I am far surer I know that I was born, or I had parents, or, for that matter, that I am not dreaming when I am awake, than I could possibly be sure that I don't know and that I need to prove these things to know them.

See what I have in mind,? If your argument is that I don't know because I cannot prove, then my counter-argument is that since I do know, and since I cannot prove, I don't have to prove in order to know. Notice, however, that for the sake of argument, that I am agreeing with you that we can neither prove that we were born, nor that we had parents, nor that when we are awake that we are not dreaming.


Hiya Ken
What "patents"?

I see your point - To Know, is not to have proof, but to accept knowledge is acceptable, even without proof. And ultimately "knowledge" proves nothing.

If knowledge proves "nothing" though? Nothing exists??? But it doesn't!

Great chatting Ken, be well sir.

Mark...
 
Chris uk
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 04:41 pm
@mark noble,
You are all barking Mad!!
This is my first Post, on my first thread read!
Mark! my head hurts already...

Keep it up!

Best Wishes
Chris
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 03:12 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;164562 wrote:
Which bit?
The lot. I dont know what you're asking, what kind of response you would consider to be an answer, etc.
 
platorepublic
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 03:18 am
@mark noble,
Yes uncertainty of some particular parameters could be certain, refer to Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It's so established, that there is no argument.

If you are going to talk of uncertainty as an all-encompassing description, then never mind.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 07:18 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;164870 wrote:
what kind of response you would consider to be an answer, etc.


Hi Ughaibu,



I'l rephrase the question, but I'll get slammed for my improper use of philosophical terminology.

Is Everything possible? Yes or no?
Is the answer to this Indisputable, certain, definite, exact? indeed, is any answer to any question?

Thank you and journey well.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 02:22 PM ----------

platorepublic;164871 wrote:

If you are going to talk of uncertainty as an all-encompassing description, then never mind.


Hi Plato,

That's how I would like to have put it. "All-encompassing".

Thank you, I'll be using that from now on, if you don't mind?

And, vogage magnificently sir.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 07:36 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;164610 wrote:
Hiya Ken
What "patents"?

I see your point - To Know, is not to have proof, but to accept knowledge is acceptable, even without proof. And ultimately "knowledge" proves nothing.

If knowledge proves "nothing" though? Nothing exists??? But it doesn't!

Great chatting Ken, be well sir.

Mark...


I never (I hope) said anything like that! No one should ever claim to know anything unless he has sufficient justification for what he believes he knows. Otherwise it would be claiming to know when you were really only guessing. And that would mislead others who, naturally, would believe that if someone sincerely claimed to know, he would do so on the basis of sufficient justification. Otherwise, it would be like promising to do something without having any expectation of keeping your promise. Both would be unethical.

If you do know (and you do not merely claim to know, or believe that you know) then, of course, that means that what you know is true, since a necessary condition of knowledge is truth. So, the argument, A knows that p, therefore p, is a valid argument. Therefore, in knowledge does prove that what is known is true, since unless what is known is true, it could not be known.

"Logic is logic, that's all I can say" Oliver Wendell Holmes. The Deacon's Masterpiece
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 08:01 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164911 wrote:
I"Logic is logic, that's all I can say" Oliver Wendell Holmes. The Deacon's Masterpiece


Hi Ken,

How do you know that logic is, indeed, logic, or even logical, come to think of it?
"One man's logical is another man's irrational"

Is this obsevation logical or irrational???

Thank you Ken, and fruit ye greatly.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 08:04 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;164921 wrote:
Hi Ken,

How do you know that logic is, indeed, logic, or even logical, come to think of it?
"One man's logical is another man's irrational"

Is this obsevation logical or irrational???

Thank you Ken, and fruit ye greatly.

Mark...


Is "silly" a choice? How about, "irrelevant", since it has nothing whatever to do with the issue?
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 11:14 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164923 wrote:
Is "silly" a choice? How about, "irrelevant", since it has nothing whatever to do with the issue?


Hi Ken,

I disagree. To what I am attempting to achieve by this thread, it is crucial.
If you think it is silly? well, that's your prerogative.
I think it is sound.

Or maybe you feel the need to disregard what you fail to understand? I don't know - and couldn,t be certain if I did know, even if I did.
One thing I do know though - Knowing is not certain! And I say this with no certainty whatsoever.

Thank you Ken, and be merry.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 12:12 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;164983 wrote:
Hi Ken,

I disagree. To what I am attempting to achieve by this thread, it is crucial.
If you think it is silly? well, that's your prerogative.
I think it is sound.

Or maybe you feel the need to disregard what you fail to understand? I don't know - and couldn,t be certain if I did know, even if I did.
One thing I do know though - Knowing is not certain! And I say this with no certainty whatsoever.

Thank you Ken, and be merry.

Mark...



Then, what does it have to do with what was being discussed before about knowledge, and whether knowledge requires justification? Can you make any connection between that, and whether logic is logical (whatever that might mean). It is not that I am ignoring it, as you can tell, I am not. I simply have no idea what you are talking about, and how it is suppose to connect with what we were talking about. For instance, would you like to comment on my argument that no one should claim to know anything unless he has justification for it, because it would be ethically misleading for him to do so? Do you agree?

Of course, if when you do say something, and I reply to it, and you simply ignore it, and go on to something entirely different, it does make we wonder whether holding a conversation with you is worth doing. I am sure you can understand that.

I agree with you. Knowledge does not require certainty. That is why I call myself a fallibilist. But, on the other hand, it does seem to me that if one claims to know something, then he ought to feel certain he does know it, else, it would be very misleading for him to make that claim. Don't you think so?

It is a part of conversational courtesy (in philosophy, anyway) that you take what others say seriously. And that obviously means that you make a serious attempt to reply to what they say, and not behave as if they never said it, and simply go on as if they never had. Philosophical conversation is, as Plato pointed out, a dialogue. Not off-the-cuff remarks having nothing much to do with what was said before. Perhaps people have to learn that.

Dialogue is different from free association (saying whatever happens to be triggered off in your mind by the last words spoken). It involves argumentation.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 04:20 pm
@kennethamy,
Hi Ken,

!) I don't claim to know anything, so why need I justify it, and even if I did justify it, how would I be sure that it was justly justified?

2) I have never ignored you Ken. I spend more time switching this pc off and on due to errors, crashes and "page cannot be displayed" displays, than I dare mention. I have written this reply twice already, only to have everything freeze on submission.

If I do go off on tangents, it is to lead via a sub-route - back to the point.

3) I think it misleading when someone confesses to knowing something for sure.
I believe that 2+2=4, I was taught this, told this, and apply this, but, I don't know this for sure - and I'm not even sure that I'm sure I'm not sure.

4) I don't always want to argue Ken, especially when I agree with a discussion.
What Plato said or did, doesn't always appeal to me. And he is not the be-all and end -all of philosophical issues. They evolve and mutate, not revolve and stagnate.

Excuse the poetry, but it's what I am.

I appear to have left a post or question unanswered Ken. Can you re-ask me please. I'll pay it maximum attention.

Thank you Ken, journey splendidly.

Mark...
 
mark noble
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 02:33 pm
@mark noble,
Hi all,

So. back to the beginning - Is uncertainty certain?

What is the paradox, and why?

Thank you all, marvel to the max.

Mark...
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 02:43 pm
@ughaibu,
Logic is a method that requires presuppositions. Possible universal laws are not, as far as we know, 'thinking things'. we provide the presupposition that something cannot be X and not X at the same time. It is an arbitrary logical law based on limited experience, limited extrapolation, limited preceptive ability etc... In short we are imposing an arbitrary judgment about certainty based on a series of unknowable presuppositions, when we say that we can't be certain that there is no certainty.

Aside from this: certainty itself requires a set of presuppositions to make it certain. We can be logically certain of anything given we begin with the appropriate presuppositions.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 03:01 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;166573 wrote:
Logic is a method that requires presuppositions. Possible universal laws are not, as far as we know, 'thinking things'. we provide the presupposition that something cannot be X and not X at the same time. It is an arbitrary logical law based on limited experience, limited extrapolation, limited preceptive ability etc... In short we are imposing an arbitrary judgment about certainty based on a series of unknowable presuppositions, when we say that we can't be certain that there is no certainty.

Aside from this: certainty itself requires a set of presuppositions to make it certain. We can be logically certain of anything given we begin with the appropriate presuppositions.


I don't know what it means to say that logic is a method. Logic is a study of the rules of how we ought to think. It is what Peirce called, a "normative science". I don't know what presuppositions you are talking about. Perhaps if you named one or two, I could tell what you meant. I don't know who said we can (or cannot) be certain there is certainty (or no certainty). I am not even clear about what "certainty" means in that context. There are, in general, two kinds of certainty. 1. Psychological or subjective certainty. Namely, a high degree of confidence that a proposition is true. 2. Objective certainty. Objective certainty has been mostly discussed by philosophers like Descartes and Russell. What is meant by objective certainty is the impossibility of error, or infallibility. Descartes, for example held that he knew with certainty that he existed. By that he meant that it was impossible for him (and presumably each of us) to believe he existed and not exist. I cannot be mistaken about whether I exist. Descartes seems to have been right there. Or, if not, the burden of proof would be on the objector to his view.

You talk much too generally and vaguely about something which, if it is to be talked about, needs to be talked about specifically and in detail. Otherwise it is simply talk without direction.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 03:11 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;166580 wrote:
I don't know what it means to say that logic is a method. Logic is a study of the rules of how we ought to think. .


Taaaaaaaaaaaaaa Daaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/18/2024 at 08:24:39