I don't believe that knowledge does imply certainty (infallibility or the impossibility of error). But why is it thought by some philosophers (let us call them "infallibilists", that knowledge does imply certainty? After all, Plato and Descartes both believed it, so it obviously is not because those who think it are dummies.

the Universe has limits

for example

I ask you , to knock down the CN Tower in Toronto , Canada , with a hockey stick or baseball bat , at the base of, the CN Tower

impossible

hence a certainty

we now know then that anything is not possible

that there are , limits within the Universe , that really have been there all along we just didn't see it

but there are limits

What Descartes meant is that he was not infallible. So that he might alwaysbelieve that something was impossible and be mistaken. He pointed out that it doesn't follow that something is impossible because you believe it to be so. Of course, it might indeed be impossible, but, according to Descartes, no person could be absolutely certain that was so. The issue is not about whether this or that is true, but about whether it can be known to be true, that is, known with certainty. It is not about metaphysics. It is about epistemology.

I don't believe that knowledge does imply certainty (infallibility or the impossibility of error). But why is it thought by some philosophers (let us call them "infallibilists", that knowledge does imply certainty? After all, Plato and Descartes both believed it, so it obviously is not because those who think it are dummies.

I have a number of explanations for why this (what I consider) false belief is held by so many, and I don't think they are exclusive. I think they all operated together. One is that some philosophers hold that certainty is knowing that we know, and that we always know we know, because knowledge is a mental state that we can know directly. Another is that the belief that knowledge implies certainty is the consequence of a modal fallacy. A third is that mathematics has always been considered the exemplar of knowledge, and the belief is that mathematics is certain. As I said, I think that these explanations operate together.

But the belief has consequences. One is that most of what we all think we know, we really do not know. Another is that science cannot afford us knowledge. A third is that we know no more today than we did 100 years ago. These consequences by themselves would seem to be be enough to show that the belief that knowledge implies certainty is false.

I don't believe that knowledge does imply certainty (infallibility or the impossibility of error). But why is it thought by some philosophers (let us call them "infallibilists", that knowledge does imply certainty? After all, Plato and Descartes both believed it, so it obviously is not because those who think it are dummies.

I have a number of explanations for why this (what I consider) false belief is held by so many, and I don't think they are exclusive. I think they all operated together. One is that some philosophers hold that certainty is knowing that we know, and that we always know we know, because knowledge is a mental state that we can know directly. Another is that the belief that knowledge implies certainty is the consequence of a modal fallacy. A third is that mathematics has always been considered the exemplar of knowledge, and the belief is that mathematics is certain. As I said, I think that these explanations operate together.

But the belief has consequences. One is that most of what we all think we know, we really do not know. Another is that science cannot afford us knowledge. A third is that we know no more today than we did 100 years ago. These consequences by themselves would seem to be be enough to show that the belief that knowledge implies certainty is false.

But the belief has consequences. One is that most of what we all think we know, we really do not know. Another is that science cannot afford us knowledge. A third is that we know no more today than we did 100 years ago. These consequences by themselves would seem to be be enough to show that the belief that knowledge implies certainty is false.

the Universe has limits

for example

I ask you , to knock down the CN Tower in Toronto , Canada , with a hockey stick or baseball bat , at the base of, the CN Tower

impossible

hence a certainty

we now know then that anything is not possible

that there are , limits within the Universe , that really have been there all along we just didn't see it

but there are limits

Hello North,

Everything is possible in infinity - The properties to your argument are open to change and therefore so is the resulting outcome.

Maybe everything is not acheivable in the here and now, but in the throws of infinity - Who knows?

If everything is impossible, then everything cannot exist - therefore there is no EVERYTHING, and the existence of ONE THING alone constitutes that EVERYTHING is the sum of that ONE THING.

We agree that "NOTHING" is impossible,

because "NOTHING" cannot exist - Causality therefore demands that the opposite of "NOTHING" = "EVERYTHING" MUST be possible, otherwise "NOTHING EXISTS". and if so, then this conversation cannot be taking place.

You are discounting the event mentioned , taking place in another universal realm, where, the tower in question is being knocked down with a hockey stick all the time.
Just because you are not witness to this event - doesn't mean it isn't taking place.

Thank you, and I understand your point of view - I was there once myself.

Mark...

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
the Universe has limits

for example

I ask you , to knock down the CN Tower in Toronto , Canada , with a hockey stick or baseball bat , at the base of, the CN Tower

impossible

hence a certainty

we now know then that anything is not possible

that there are , limits within the Universe , that really have been there all along we just didn't see it

but there are limits








I disagree

infinity shatters the hockey stick to infinite particles



above



your getting carried away here

its that everything is not possible



NO we don't




your getting way off topic here



not in this Universe

and thats all that matters




come back to the Universe into where you live

Hi North,

I do understand that I, We exist in this realm, and this realm alone. But, science cannot measure the beyond or the depths of. Do you not think that it is normal for the mind to imagine what is beyond these parameters?

I do. And if you can find "Nothing" anywhere, anywhere at all, and substantiate it with logic or reason, other than opinion - please let me know?

I don't believe that knowledge does imply certainty (infallibility or the impossibility of error). But why is it thought by some philosophers (let us call them "infallibilists", that knowledge does imply certainty? After all, Plato and Descartes both believed it, so it obviously is not because those who think it are dummies.

I have a number of explanations for why this (what I consider) false belief is held by so many, and I don't think they are exclusive. I think they all operated together. One is that some philosophers hold that certainty is knowing that we know, and that we always know we know, because knowledge is a mental state that we can know directly. Another is that the belief that knowledge implies certainty is the consequence of a modal fallacy. A third is that mathematics has always been considered the exemplar of knowledge, and the belief is that mathematics is certain. As I said, I think that these explanations operate together.

But the belief has consequences. One is that most of what we all think we know, we really do not know. Another is that science cannot afford us knowledge. A third is that we know no more today than we did 100 years ago. These consequences by themselves would seem to be be enough to show that the belief that knowledge implies certainty is false.

Excellent post. I feel it is a matter of terminology.

Of course it is. With one kind of exception every truth is partly a matter of terminology. But that does not mean it is only a matter of terminology. It is not, for instance, only a matter of terminology whether a necessary condition of knowing is the impossibility or whether it is merely the inactuality of error. For clearly I can know that Quito is the capital Ecuador although it is possible for me to be mistaken about it as long as I am not mistaken about it.

The distinction between being (partly) a matter of terminology, and being only a matter of terminology, is a very important distinction, and we should make that distinction. Most people fail to do so.

Of course it is. With one kind of exception every truth is partly a matter of terminology. But that does not mean it is only a matter of terminology. It is not, for instance, only a matter of terminology whether a necessary condition of knowing is the impossibility or whether it is merely the inactuality of error. For clearly I can know that Quito is the capital Ecuador although it is possible for me to be mistaken about it as long as I am not mistaken about it.

The distinction between being (partly) a matter of terminology, and being only a matter of terminology, is a very important distinction, and we should make that distinction. Most people fail to do so.

I think if you asked most forum members if they had knowledge that was significant to them and trusted enough to "bank on" and yet not certain, they would say "yes." As to the second issue, perhaps you could phrase that differently. I want to make sure I understand you before I address that.

only[/B] a matter of terminology whether Brutus killed Caesar (or whether Caesar killed Brutus). Similarly, whether knowledge implies certainty or not does, of course, partly depend on what you call "terminology". But why would you think it depends entirely on terminology? Anymore than that the truth that Brutus killed Caesar, although it does depend partly on terminology, would entirely depend on terminology?

Now that I see what you mean, I can say that no I don't think it depends only on terminology. Yes, the facts are quite important indeed. I meant the terminology of the thread title. I still don't think you will find many who assert that the truth of historical statements has only to do with terminology. The word "knowledge" is used in different ways. As you know. So I think the confusion is resolved. I hope.