Certainty is axiomatic. You can't disprove certainty without first invoking it. But for those who don't get this, let us try a simple approach.
The common objection presented against certainty is that we can never be certain what will happen tomorrow. This is a valid objection and part of a larger problem in epistemology -- namely the issue of the validity of inductive reasoning. However, it does not follow that just because we presently, logically, cannot be certain of what will happen tomorrow, that we cannot be certain of anything. Indeed we invoke certainty to make such an assertion to begin with.
To make the argument easier to follow, I will use a hypothetical conversation between Alice and Bob.
Alice: We can't be certain of anything, the best we can do is to maintain beliefs with varying degrees of confidence.
Bob: To address this argument we should first agree that certainty has two forms: conditional certainty, and unconditional certainty. Conditional certainty is of the form "if something, then something else", whereas unconditional certainty is of the form "something is always the case."
Alice: Ok, I agree that the concept of certainty encompasses these two forms.
Bob: So if I make a statement in the form of "if the laws of logic and of physics hold tomorrow as they did today, then the earth will continue to rotate," then you have no objection to this form of certainty?
Alice: I suppose not.
Bob: So if we can always prefix our statements with conditions about the state of things, then we can have a form of certainty in that regard?
Alice: agreed.
Bob: If we can always prefix statements with conditions about the state of things, and thereby derive conditional certainty, then it is unconditionally the case that conditional certainty holds.
Alice: yes.
Bob: If it is unconditionally the case that conditional certainty holds, then we have at least a single instance of unconditional certainty. Therefore certainty exists.
Of course this is proving the affirmative of a rather silly proposition, and there are easier ways to disprove the argument against certainty:
Anti-certainty advocates will appeal to "confidence of belief", but confidence with respect to what? If they are assigning a probability that a belief will turn out to be the case, then they are assuming a standard of certainty against which to measure their belief. If they replace truth with probability, then they enter infinite regression.
And, naturally, an anti-certainty advocate will claim that "they are certain that there is no certainty" -- a rank contradiction. If you chase them on this issue they will appeal to the "confidence of belief" or probability again, and enter infinite regression (a fallacy of the form: circular reasoning.)
I, believe In Certainty, and to be fair, its not a subject I've ever tried to argue against in my lifetime, However;
Couldn't certainty be seen as a action of the mind, Taking a statement, and supplying the statement truth and analysis with the backing up of memory and knowledge, to help the person believe his statement is correct? Struggling to word this, So I'll explain it this way below;
Bee's are insects. <- First Statement, The mind now try's and proves this through Knowledge and Memory;
A. Bee's are related to Wasps And Ants, And It belongs to the Apoidea Family, But sometime depends on the type of Bee, as African Bees belong to the Melittidae family.
I, believe In Certainty, and to be fair, its not a subject I've ever tried to argue against in my lifetime, However;
Couldn't certainty be seen as a action of the mind, Taking a statement, and supplying the statement truth and analysis with the backing up of memory and knowledge, to help the person believe his statement is correct? Struggling to word this, So I'll explain it this way below;
The brain has reassured me with knowledge and memory, giving me a "certainty" that the statement is correct.
The mechanism is not epistemologically relevant, at least in this part of epistemology. That is: you are using the mechanism -- your rational faculty -- speculate about its own nature. But you are assuming its validity, and more fully the validity of reason itself, in order to begin going about doing this. In other-words: you cannot disprove the validity of mathematics by reasoning in mathematics, and likewise you cannot disprove the validity of reason by reasoning in reason. -- Except it just so happens we literally haven't another way of thinking about things.
You are conflating inductive discovery -- which is the least certain form of reasoning -- with all other types of reasoning. In many cases I can be more certain of the outcome before it has ever happened, than of an outcome that has come about before.
For example: "If you fall into that meat grinder while it is operating, then you will become the first human killed by that meat grinder."
As opposed to: I will grow old. <-- will you? or will medicine cure aging?
We can make educated "guesses" about most things. Such as "tomorrow, my mother will be home from work at around 5:00 PM" I am not certain that she will arrive in this time, but because of daily patterns, I have an educated guess that she will, but I can't be 100% certain that she will.
Things like; repeated cycles, such as "tomorrow will be Sunday, the day after will be Monday, and 7 days from Monday, it will be Monday again" I am certain, 100% percent sure of myself that I am correct about the above statement.
We can make educated "guesses" about most things. Such as "tomorrow, my mother will be home from work at around 5:00 PM" I am not certain that she will arrive in this time, but because of daily patterns, I have an educated guess that she will, but I can't be 100% certain that she will.
Things like; repeated cycles, such as "tomorrow will be Sunday, the day after will be Monday, and 7 days from Monday, it will be Monday again" I am certain, 100% percent sure of myself that I am correct about the above statement.
Can you be certain that your friend that has passed away a few year back
will not rise from the grave?
You can only be certain about events that have happened before the time
and cannot ever be possible again.
How about this example.
It is impossible to have the exact people who watched the 1908 nrl grand final in the crowd today,
just for the fact that most of the people there have passed on.
We are summing up the two possibilities in a simpler way. There really isn't much to discuss, as we all know that no one can be 100% sure of anything, and your first post sums everything up.
It can be simplified down to your original statement: certain about uncertainty. Which was proven invalid by it's paradoxical manner.
On the otherhand though, if interpreted by my fasion: uncertain about certainty, it's validity holds. In fact, in his specific wording, it would reflect my interpretation better; he said: "we 'can't' be" reflecting my "uncertain" term, rather than, we "can" be, reflecting your "certain" term. In example to what would fit your interpretation better, he would've said something along the lines of, "I've came to the belief, that we can be sure that we can't know anything for sure.", not the best example as common people would not word it like that, but it fits the context. :3
Off-topic: I've sent you a PM regarding my post: "Random Gibberish" being locked. If you have the time I would appreciate that you please read it, I can understand if you are extremely busy, however; simply disregard this request.
I hate to delve into specifics, but I should acknowledge that you were correct to make the lock, however, there are "grey areas" in the rules posted. In relevancy, I should argue for the logic behind the rules themselves, as it's possible that without reasoning to backup your statements (as required in the rules and broken by my post), they can still be considered to have "intellectual propositions"; thou to the word "inspire" and "wonder" : "debate" and "discussion". Also, if in concern to the relation of the name and description of this section to the contents of the rules, it can be argued that what the name and description of this section should theoretically cover cannot be by the enforcement of the rules, thus, a flawed set of rules or the namely usage of the term "grey areas"; example: In occurrence, the enforcement of prohibiting topics discussing the theory of an all-powerful being's existence without a point of reason as the controversy is seemingly infinite. Continuing, I should state that in this specific circumstance come the usage of "exceptions" by definition which I approve of whilst honoring the respects of all others' opinions.
Can't Certainty be true in relativity, and in time, as in, can't i be certain that relative to my spectrum of space, and relative to my perspective, right now i am typing on this computer,
And also, back to the relative thing, even if i was wrong about something, i could still be certain about it, relative to me, i am 100% sure that this could be true, my thought may change when or if i discover the truth, but in that time that i did not know the truth, wasn't I still certain?
Sythe if I say I am going to drop a ball then one second later I drop it, was I not certain that it will happen? I cannot be uncertain as im holding the ball in one hand and in my mind I know I will drop it before I have said I will do so, therefore making me certain the ball will be dropped.
This is an interesting discussion, because one may wonder if their may be a chain of events that you cannot predict, causing one to be certain about uncertainty.
For example: "Today is Tuesday. So I'm certain tomorrow will be Wednesday."
However, are you certain that will occur due to a rational state of mind, or are you uncertain as to whether the world will end today, the axis of the Earth will become radically off-set, freezing the Earth over or causing it to go up in flames, etc?
As a result of that, I could say that I'm certain about uncertainty, but you can be certain about certain events. Yes.
This can be quite confusing, but then again, it requires one to go into a higher level of thinking to discuss it on an intellectual level with reason and understanding.
This is an interesting discussion, because one may wonder if their may be a chain of events that you cannot predict, causing one to be certain about uncertainty.
For example: "Today is Tuesday. So I'm certain tomorrow will be Wednesday."
However, are you certain that will occur due to a rational state of mind, or are you uncertain as to whether the world will end today, the axis of the Earth will become radically off-set, freezing the Earth over or causing it to go up in flames, etc?
As a result of that, I could say that I'm certain about uncertainty, but you can be certain about certain events. Yes.
This can be quite confusing, but then again, it requires one to go into a higher level of thinking to discuss it on an intellectual level with reason and understanding.
Tomorrow will still be Wednesday, whether or not humans are around it is still wednesday, the only form of uncertainty from that question is whether or not you will be around on wednesday, not if the next day is wednesday or not, therefore you can be certain that tomorrow is still wednesday even if the world ends today.
Tomorrow will still be Wednesday, whether or not humans are around it is still wednesday, the only form of uncertainty from that question is whether or not you will be around on wednesday, not if the next day is wednesday or not, therefore you can be certain that tomorrow is still wednesday even if the world ends today.
Yes. That's something I was meaning to say, but then I went in the opposite direction. Like I said, a topic of this degree forces you to go into a higher level of thinking, which I'm attempting to get back into a groove of. Heh.
Thanks for clarifying what I was wanting to clarify. For, as what is said above, you can indeed be certain about some things.
(I was even talking about the end of the world happening, but I guess I got sidetracked while doing so.)
Absolute Certainty
