Question about certainty.

I just wanted to make this thread so see if anyone here can help clarify a problem within my mind. I will lay this out now.

As many of you may know, there are very few certainties possessed by us; so few that a number of people (including Descartes) hold that our only true certainty is in our own existence -- and perhaps some form of perception of other (in order for the function of perception to be even possible).

To get to my point, this necessitates that any function or force outside of oneself is not certain. For instance, I know that every time in my life that I jumped up, I landed back on the ground. However, I do not know that this time I perform the exact same action I will not simply float. Please do not dispute this; it is a fundamental point within philosophy and logic, and if you take even an introductory course to such pursuits you will encounter this, and will have plenty of opportunity to dispute it with your instructor. To identify quickly, it is a form of logic which rests on the foundation that one cannot establish a certainty without a set number of actions, while obviously there is an undetermined amount of actions. As well, it functions outside of ourselves which subjects it to delusion or miscommuncation.

Anyway, my point is that if this is true -- that there is no certainty in this area -- how can there be a law of gravity? Laws must always apply and must always be certain. This concept runs through for all other laws of nature and notions of that sort.

Please note that I am not attacking the law of gravity in any form: I am merely looking for a clarification.

 

Idk how you can prove gravity,
I'm no Issac Newton,
But unless you're in space,
What goes up, must come down.

 

That's not exactly what I was driving at, but thanks for the contribution.

 

The three laws of gravity is how you prove gravity.
No matter what you throw in the air on earth it will come back down. This have been proven. Every time you jump you will come back down, unless there is an opposing force acting against gravity.

 

Hmm, I think that clears up my difficulty. So, to summarize, though there is no certainty that you will fall back down, that is not a condition on the law of gravity but a possibility that it could be suspended or countered.

 

"A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably. "

Works Cited:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm


So to answer your question there is no "certainty" as there is no absolute truth in science. The law of gravity is a law because there has never been anything suggesting that what goes up must come down here on earth. Now is space there is no "gravity" or force pulling the object in question back down. It remains the law of gravity until it is proven to be false.

 

I think your referring to the Problem of Induction.

While it is true, logical or empirical justification for Inductive Reasoning cannot be made in a non-circular way, I don't think it matters that much. For starters, any person that makes states that Inductive Reasoning is flawed presupposes the very same reasoning.

Also, anyone profusely citing the flawed nature of Inductive Reasoning runs into innumerable performative contradictions throughout the course of their life. I don't think it's at all possible to live a life without utilizing Inductive Reasoning, and nor do I think you can make a case against the justifiable use of it without first presupposing it.

Essentially, advocating the 'flawed' nature of Inductive Reasoning is silly. It's like saying just because (as you said) when we jump up on earth we fall back down rather rapidly doesn't mean then next time we jump up we won't float. It's like saying just because we heat water to a temperature of 100 kelvin doesn't mean it will boil. It's like saying just because you went to sleep in the Milky Way Galaxy, doesn't mean you won't wake up in the Andromeda Galaxy. No one lives by these, we are 'certain' that when we flick the light switch on, the lights will turn on; if the lights do not turn on, they've probably died. We are certain that if we use Pythagoras to work out the distance of a length in a right angle triangle, said length will be correctly calculated. Any objections? Perhaps people may say that there is no logical or empirical justification for Inductive Reasoning. My response: Doesn't necessitating the need for justification presuppose Inductive Reasoning?

Essentially, certainty is axiomatic; self-evident. Saying certainty doesn't exist is a paradox.

 

Math is a certainty?

2+2 is four. That will never change. 2 + 2 will always be four. 2 + 2 +3 is 7. That is not 2 + 2 which equals 4. So that is certainty.

There is more than one certainty.