Can we be 100% Certain?

krossie · July 1, 2011, 1:26pm

The quest for absolute certainy one of those unfortunate banana skins philosophy throws about it all too carelessly - so so so much time wasted - my view be happy with 99% and move on…

We must confess that we do not fully and finally know anything at all, but practically and provisionally know more than we ever can imagine
Vincent Colapietro

and if you have the Jstor access:

jstor.org/pss/2026985
(The Journal of Philosophy > Vol. 88, No. 3, Mar., 1991 > Epistemology on Holiday)

James_S_Saint · July 1, 2011, 2:14pm

Do any of you ever wonder why it is that 99% of the people you talk to online preach about how impossible it is to be certain?
Who are they preaching to?
And more importantly, since so many obviously already believe the message, why?

WW_III_ANGRY · July 1, 2011, 2:19pm

Its a massive conspiracy by reptilians to obfuscate.

krossie · July 1, 2011, 2:45pm

Reptilian Rapscallions! (David Icke and his ilk)

I’d see preaching as more of a mark of the 100% brigade - lets calling them the certainty quest crew (whether of a religious, ‘scientific’, philosophical (Plato step up here meet GE Moore) or other disposition) - with the 99% or less being happy to study things in their ordinary flow…perhaps learn a little.

It’s a trait that seems to even effect the mighty post-structuralists - with a metaphysics of 100% absence seeming a reverse image of logical positivism or empirism’s need for reasurance on 100% presence…

Now I’m off to play with Stanley Cavell (well I’m 99% sure I am)

Kp

James_S_Saint · July 1, 2011, 3:39pm

It is easy to be certain of how many conspiracies there are at any one time;

count the number of different things said by people online
subtract those said by the altruist (or altruists if you can find more than one)
multiply that by 2

Nah · July 1, 2011, 4:38pm

Abstract:

I think I would agree that maybe we don’t just take things for granted naturally. For many kids will ask why continuously, sometimes they do this to bother us, but normally that is only after the realize we are bothered by it and that such is funny. And Asking why continuously eventually reveals something we don’t know about what we think we do know. Like a container, we think we know how it works, but i might say that when you break it down to the idea that things don’t leave it because it doesn’t have wholes, or very big wholes, a kid might then ask why do you need wholes in order for something to go through, why don’t hings work pass through each other without wholes. One might then say because such and such wouldn’t work right then, but then a kid would ask why can’t things be such that they do work right and yet still can pass through each other…Illogical to us but a good question nonetheless… It shows to me that even the simplest things that we think we understand can’t or aren’t really completely understood.

I tend to think that “why?” questions of young kid (like age 2 to 4) aren’t questions to absorb “reasoning”, as far as I’ve observed.
They are more of “connecting questions” to store the basic relations/associations into the memory data base.
I think it’s a bit like booting up process of an OS or some language system that needs to setup environmental data and other parameters at start up.

But adults tend to take these questions as “reasoning questions”, which is fine, and they may have the effect as you pointed out, such as making us realize that we don’t really understand things very well.

So, for kids and for adults, it’s a bit different and I don’t think it’s a very good idea to start “installing” very complex factors into basic database, although it always depends on the capacity/condition of each kid.

I think I started to learn a bit about probability around 7 or 8 years old by playing different games.
I do think we can introduce the possibility that things aren’t totally fixed/absolute, gradually (but again depending on each kid).

Nah:

So, although it may seem bad to guide young kids in absolute manner, I think we need to do so in order for them to be able to make solid connections, at first, and in order for their desire/nature to make connections with absolute certainty to be fully satisfied.
When they grow up, later on, they can learn and adjust the subconscious landscape.
I think we can know when to start guiding them in more relative and conditional thinking if we observe their way of questioning and thinking. Probably slowly starting around 7 years old for occasional introduction, but more after 11 or 12 years old (always depending on the actual case of each kid).
And demolishing can be as much fun as constructing.
But there are social pressure and other factors playing against this type of guidance, and it requires “absolute confidence” of the kid toward the person guiding them.

I think often and in this case it is one of those things that should be taught not necessarily at a specific age, but when the child asks.

Yup. But I think there is more or less general tendency, as well.
And I think we should be careful about the question of kids, as they may formulate certain question that may seem to one thing for an adult, but they can be asking something very different. Following the perspective of others, and especially kids, can be challenging.

From certain point of view, it’s better to give kids the chance/occasion to learn that parents/adults can be wrong.
Otherwise, we can create kids who always believe that parents and other authority figures are right.
Kids need to learn to negate.
So, we don’t have to tell everything to them.
It’s more fun to discover things by themselves (again, depending on the character/etc of each kid).

My parents (and teachers) taught me very little. I learned majority of things by myself.
And I liked it that way. It was fun.

Nah:

We need “god like” figure or other sources that provide enough dose of absolute emotional certainty to get rid of the necessity/dependency for absolute certainty.
Unfortunately, I don’t think most substitutes provide pure absolute certainty.
And religion and other potentially fanatical mentalities are a bit addictive probably because of this.

One needs be careful teaching a child what things are emotions and not, as they may begin to think that certain things are simply emotions and ok to have, begin to like certain emotions that aren’t good, dislike emotions that are good… And plus if a child says I just got this weird feeling it was like “PLACE CHILD LIKE DESCRIPTION OF AN EMOTION HERE” but then parents often misinterpret that emotion as something else and can lead the child to inappropriately identify with things, but I don’t know that such happens often.

The desire/need for the certainty can be seen in kids and adults, I’d say.
In may adults, it’s a bit distorted and manifests in various form.
In kids, it’s more or less direct (although it depends on the predisposition of each kid).
And it’s pretty difficult (if possible) what is really “good” for a kid, because we can’t really foresee future nor judge overall “good”/“bad” of the life.
However, I do think some basic needs are relatively important to be satisfied.
I mean, kids need to eat, sleep, and so on.
And I put the desire/need for the certainty (which is closely related to the sense of safety, well being, comforting, positiveness, in my opinion), in the similar place as the basic needs.

I’m not really into psychology.
I tend to think that I’m more into awareness mechanics/geometry and its manifestation in humans realms (especially in our thought, emotion, etc), which may overlap a bit 9or more) with psychology and other studies. I also have the back ground in teaching job, catering young and old with different skill/intellectual levels and cultures.

And I tend to think things from the perspective of information processing (as I worked as a programmer/consultant).
I often think from the perspective of our desire/need/motivation, too.
Basically, I’m simply selfishly seeking to satisfy my own needs, which happened to the awareness related matters rather than stock market or other more common interests.

Abstract · July 1, 2011, 10:08pm

There are 2 prime reasons why I would attempt to discuss certainty:
1.) I don’t know if it is good or not to think it is not certain…
2.)It seems to have helped me alot to consitently keep this in mind such as not to take things for granted or lead into preconcieved notions, it has helped me listen, and thus learn.

Abstract · July 1, 2011, 10:26pm

That seems quite true.

Indeed, to not let them sleep or lead them to think they shouldn’t would be bad. But for example you can still say it is possible it is not good for them, even let them find out by trying to stay up late. But Ultimately one could still say for example that they won’t let the child not do it untill the child convinses the parent that it would be bad by means of logic not lieing… And you would think the child would not be able to severely reduce you certainty enough to get away with that…If they could that would probably mean they were Jesus or something…

Moreno · July 1, 2011, 10:33pm

It was a statement, not really an argument, but one I think is supported by arguments elsewhere. It is certainly NOT an argument supporting claims to 100% certainty - by this meaning that one is both absolutely certain and with good reason since one is correct in some infallible way.

I am working in a couple of areas here in this thread and it can be very tricky to keep them separate. The area I am reacting to in the quote above is based on a couple of things

an intuition that we function, all of us, as if we are 100% certain of at least somethings, at least at a meta level even in conversations like this one. So when someone says we cannot be 100% certain they are probably being a hypocrite in relation to this assertion much of the time. Especially when cornered by events with high emotional charge.
given that it is an universal statement, based on the ‘we’, this gets very tricky. An assertion like that is not really just one assertion. It is based on reasoning and perception, including perceptions of others. There are semantic issues and memory issues and logic issues. If each of these are uncertain, how are these people adding these all up and deciding they know the probability. Intuitively I would say. If someone is saying I cannot be certain and this must then include many many uncertainties, even the number of which is uncertain, and then this person is still willing to make an unqualified assertion about everyone else in existence, something unintentionally ironic is going on.

I’m not sure what 100% probably means, but I assume there is some wryness in your use of the term.

For another argument though I may have suggested this earlier:

We have a prioris or working assumptions. But I really don’t think humans can manage to actually consider all there assumptions working assumptions, except perhaps when that specific issue is on the table. I am not sure what it means if people, when the subject is on the table, assert that these are working assumptions they are not 100% certain of, if the rest of the time they are just like people who do think one can be 100% certain. Who is the real person here?

If you only accept legal and scientific epistemologies than there is no amount. But those are not the only epistemologies - the rationalists for one did not consider themselves beholden to such processes. And frankly I see no one who is consistently a scientific empiricist, whatever they assert in discussions like this one. They have absolute certainties. You can see this, often, with scientists when they are presented with what they call junk science - simply the conclusions - or new age bullshit or whatever their pet peeves are in the belief world.

so notice one of my tacks here is psychological. I am not arguing against you to prove that 100% certainty is available to us. I think, however, that no one really believes it is impossible. Actions certaintly speak louder than words on this issue, but even in words they show this sooner or later.

and I think there are regress issues in demonstrating that position, but that is a separate argument. this one also does not demonstrate that 100% certainty is available.

My reaction parallels my reaction to hard determinists. I mean, what are they doing by presenting arguments that hard determinism is the case? Hard determinism undermines the slightest certainty one is making sense and also makes striving to convince someone rather a strange moot activity. I mean, the conversation was already determined to go as it will way back in the Big Bang. Of course they can say they are compelled to participate the way they are, but they never do say this.

Moreno · July 1, 2011, 10:34pm

Abstract:

I see what you are thinking, that you might say that x is 45% probable, but y could counter x and is .0001% probable thus x is really 45-.0001% probable, and then you think of another possible counter, and another, and another and so on. but that is assuming that the varying possibilities aren’t variant in probability. but then that is asserting that there are definite probabilities with regards to them any ways. in actuality i would say that there is no way of saying something is of a probability of x% as that percent would be uncertain, and unlikely to be accurate anyways. But rather one simply quantifies by thinking of one thing being less likely or more likely than another, without the idea that anything is certain, or of a particular probability.

And plus if actual definite numerical representations of the probabilities were assertable, one would still be unlikely to think of all the possibilities ever such as to reduce any idea to be a complete unlikely hood.

Plus one would not merely be recognizing negative likely hoods, but would also be noticing positive likely hoods, as such infinite-gression in the positive or negative direction would be counteracted by the opposite. in other words as you negated things you would also be pro-gating things. But because our minds are seemingly unable to do it all at once there would not be a stagnation of thought either.

I think but am not 100% sure this was a fair take on what I wrote.

Moreno · July 1, 2011, 10:47pm

So if I understand this correctly you don’t see Socrates as being incredibly sure of himself and his ideas. If so I am surprised.

I don’t want to wander off on a tangent about S, but here are some quotes…

Of course he says things, including the famous quote about not knowing anything, that contradict these statement of certainty, but I am not asserting he never asserted a lack of certainty. Further, to me, behind his questioning are a number of certainties. I never see him actually say ‘Of course I may be cornering you in a way that seems like deductive clarity but actually is misleading, let’s go back over the steps and see if what seemed certain was actually not’ or anything of the sort. He seems quite content with the process as it is without qualification.

This however is much trickier to prove.

But then, I wonder, from a materialistic, scientifically empirical stance what the claim that one is uncertain about all one’s beliefs means? If it merely means that a person asserts this on occasion, well, we can test that and people do. But that seems like a trivial meaning. I am sure people who assert this have some qualities in common, but then they sure act and speak like they are completely certain much of the time. Where, to a scientist, is this uncertainty much of the time?

Anyway. I have enjoyed our back and forth and I think I have made my position fairly clear. I am going to leave it at least for while. I enjoyed this and there was definitely an element of play in it for me. I hope it was fun and or some use for you.

PS this discussion seems related to some of the ideas in Possibilianism, especially my post here

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=175455&p=2229931#p2229931
though you might need to go back to page 1 to get the context. It’s a long post and fairly narcissistic of me to think you might remotely be interested, but what the hey…

Abstract · July 2, 2011, 1:32am

Well I think part of the problem with that idea is that in reality we don’t need 100% certainty to functionally have a good conversation. you thinking that in order to indicate that I am 100% certain by what I say precisely I would have to overload my text with a lot of "seem"s, and "maybe"s, and "possibly"s and so on. but really it would only be necessary if every one is assuming that you are 100% certain by the way you say things. In other words it is a matter of how people define the words. For example when I say “know” without indicating otherwise, I really mean “think it seems very likely”. that is how I think about it. I recognize that other people think that know often means that one considers something to be 100% certain, but I simply don’t think that way. But at the same time if I just spoke with nothing but "seem"s and "maybe"s and "possibly"s then I would have to spend a lot of time typing…so in my case it merely amounts to a convenience, but maybe over time I will change my style to be more reflective of my way of thinking, but I don’t know that is necessary. I could just use a disclaimer and say, “this is all a theory” or “I am uncertain of everything” and then not(if the word not means what I think it does) have(if the word not means such and such) to(if…) do(if…) something(if…) like(if…) this(if…). Even there I was un-wiling to fill it all out because people are capable of getting the point without exactness. If people had to cover exactly what they were thinking in order to get a thought across I don’t know that it would be possible to always get that thought across. unless the thought you were trying to get across was something really simple like say the fact that you just thought of the word “thought”…

Well I would say that our mind is seemingly finite, so we wouldn’t have an infinite number of uncertainties to deal with.
And I don’t actually decide I know the probability. There is no numerical value involved. Indeed I would not think that such would be possible at all.
But I am as I have said capable of recognizing that certain things, though not certain, are more or less likely than other things.
For example, I don’t have to assert an actual probability when I think: It seems most likely that I exist because i do at least seem to think, the idea that I don’t exist less likely because it seems most likely that I do think, and though logic could all be a wrong method (as logic would have to be proven by logic…) it still seems like it is good to use, and it has seemed to help before, and it seems it was I have been using since I was born.

I’m useing various terms that slightly relate to the idea i am trying to get across because there didn’t seem to be a best word for what I was saying. But somebody used a good one in another topic. “speculation”
My assertion would best then be: that everything is a matter of speculation. I think that is better anyways…

For another argument though I may have suggested this earlier:

Exactly, assumptions (I might say everything is an assumption)
I would say that rather than starting something of by saying something like: It is true that… thus…
It is best to just say: If… then…

Like in math we say x=x and that makes sense it seems logical, but as everything is speculation or really an assumption really to be more accurate it would seem best to say: if x=x…then …
Or as long as we think x=x…then…

It would seem that I speculate that I can only speculate, and you speculate that you at least sometimes do that which is more than speculate…?
What I found is that i seemingly am always capable of thinking of some alternate possibility, as such I find that it is unlikely that anything i used to or would have thought I knew was really something that was worth thinking there was no way it could be wrong. So maybe my main problem and perhaps why i originated this topic was to counter the general tendency that at least some people have to think there is no way they could be wrong about something.

So maybe what I should say is that it is always possible that you could be wrong about something.

And words like “know” and “certainty” and “proof” lead many to think something is such that there is no way it is wrong, and as such cause many problems in the world.

In fact i have found that not using such words often prevents conflict… They are almost like curse words, maybe even worse…

I wouldn’t put any limit on the number of epistemologies. (get it limit on the ideas regarding the limits of knowledge… ) And exactly with new age stuff, but I say even “disproven” things we could be wrong that we were wrong…so I don’t take for granted that i am right, consider the idea, the implications, and follow through until i see some contradiction, but then if i see a contradiction I talk to the proposer of the idea…

I would say their words “indicate” this to people. As such one should often consider the audience and the possible indications that will be interpreted. In a philosophy forum that is fortunately not as necessary as in some places and situations… And I would think you are right that no one thinks it is impossible, as I don’t, in fact I might go farther and say I don’t think I think anything is impossible.

i thought i countered the regression issue as there would also be pro-gression. but I can see how you might think that if one were to think the mind operates with finite math with regards to probability.

I would think that people are interestingly naturally resistant to determinism against their own arguments at least. Often the harder you try to push the more resistance you meat…sort of like trying to speed up mass to the speed of light…

P.S. do you mind if I save our conversations?

Abstract · July 2, 2011, 2:09am

Well it would seem that he thought that hwat he said or thought was most likely, so with that repect I can see how one might confuse his 99% surety for 100% surety

if it is a thought that arises as a result of the interaction between us, I don’t see how it can be entirely irrelevant, lest it is meant to be irrelevant for the sake of distraction. In other words is their disconnection?..Digression indeed, but related yes, relevant perhaps…

but i am more concerned at least in relation to this object more with the idea of his suggesting that “nothing can be known”, rather than particularly the man himself.

Well I might agree to that in that morality (I would think) can’t actually rely totally on relative emotional values. There must be the consideration of what influences and caused or causes the emotions. And I imagine there are other things… i tend to think all things are connected and that it is beneficial to recognize that all things effect each other…

i see how that makes sense under certain interpretations but that would require a discussion which would pale this topic…
I have a different definition of soul then what most have, but the later part makes sense in that if the soal was immortal that a righteous person having a soul must also have an immortal soul but in that a righteous peson is good by definition then divinity would make sense in that is can be equated to another word for goodness. in other words one could just say, “the souls of the righteous are immortal and righteous”

Lau Tsu would agree in so far as suggesting they seem stupid because they don’t assume they can never be wrong, and ask many questions in order to find out what a person really means by what they say.

To many thoughts on that…but it would seem better to simply ask for good to happen than ask what you think as good as God would know what is good.
Of course it is that kind of thought that probably got him killed because people started seeing there friends and children (the people he taught) not doing the ritual prayer, seeing that the wording was illogical or possibly leading to bad things…

That elicits interesting thoughts in my mind.
Interesting that such a man arrived at the idea of God, outside of the pervading culture that was concerned with Gods.

I think that would have been an extremely hard subject to discuss without quickly having your head cut off in those times, for someone would have said in the argument… Don’t you think it is absolutely certain that the Gods exist. And i would think he recognized this.

An alien can’t simply begin to speak to you in their language can they?

James_S_Saint · July 2, 2011, 4:08am

‘x’ is necessarily exactly equal to ‘x’ because it IS ‘x’.
It is what it is.
That is all “x=x” means.
That is the Law of Identity in Logic = 100% certainty (that everything is necessarily exactly whatever it is).

Abstract · July 2, 2011, 6:51am

Or so we think, I admit that seems most logical, but again logic cannot be proven by logic.

Nah · July 2, 2011, 12:44pm

I’m sure you get lots of ideas/perspectives/data from discussion like this.
And I think certainty and “fake certainty” (or certainty over boosting) is related to awareness and sticky focus of awareness (or tunnel vision, in which we often mistake focused zone as the whole).

Poking certainty may reveal many interesting things, especially if we separate what’s going on in subconscious and on the surface.
I do think lots of discussion get confused because we tend to mix what is done in subconscious with our surface thought, although the division isn’t definitive nor fixed and it’s different for each person.

I guess there are too many variables that it’s really case by case.
General idea I wrote is probably applicable when parents/adults are relatively aware and kids are without any major problem.

James_S_Saint · July 2, 2011, 6:47pm

Or so we think what??
Are you implying or having doubt as to whether something is whatever it is?
That is the only axiom in Logic.
Without that axiom, you cannot say or think anything at all, not even to claim that you can’t.

Nah · July 2, 2011, 6:58pm

Sensory Awareness and Perceptual Certainty
PDF: consciousnessonline.files.wordpr … -paper.pdf
Video + discussion: consciousnessonline.wordpress.co … certainty/

Nah · July 2, 2011, 7:22pm

You only need axiom when you use the system.
It’s not required “certainty” but just required element for the particular perspective.
It doesn’t have to be permanent nor absolute certainty.
It’s more of practical requirement, I’d say.
When you use the system, it’s considered as if it’s certain for the time being.

And I guess there can be “formal logic”, in which A=A is conditional, or depending on qualifier, and so on, too.

And on top of these, I’m not so sure about “A” part of “A=A”.
I mean, I’m not very sure if we can really identify something in the sense separating something from the rest in absolute manner.
Things seem to be mixing each other and have no absolute boundary.
We can consider certain scale/precision and take it as the acceptable boundary, for the sake of practical application. But it doesn’t mean the boundary/identification is absolute.

James_S_Saint · July 2, 2011, 8:48pm

You can’t speak or think without that “system” because that system is no more than the axiom that “what is, is what is”.
Thus anything you attempt to conclude must already be using that “system”.

Okay, you claim that “it does not have to be”.
So does it have to be or not?
Logic only states that either it has to be or it doesn’t have to be (not that you necessarily know which).

Is it a “practical requirement” or is it not? That is all Logic states, that it either is or it isn’t.
Is it “considered for the time being” or is it not? That is all Logic states, that it either is or it isn’t.

Is there formal Logic wherein A=A is conditional or not? That is all Logic states, that it either is or it isn’t.
Can it depend on a qualifier or not? That is all Logic states, that it either does or it doesn’t.

Are you “so sure” about “A” or are you not? That is all Logic states, that it either you are or you aren’t.
Are you “very sure” about “if we can really identify something” or are you not? That is all Logic states, that it either you are or you aren’t.
Logic doesn’t require that you be able to separate or actually identify anything. All Logic states is that whatever it is, is what it is.

Do “things seem” that way or do they not? That is all Logic states, that it either they do are or they don’t.
Are they actually mixed together? Logic merely states that either they are mixed, or they are not.
Do they have “absolute boundaries” or don’t they? That is all Logic states, that it either they do are or they don’t.

Can we “consider certain scale/precision and take it as the acceptable boundary”, or can’t we? That is all Logic states, that it either we can or we can’t.

Does it mean “the boundary/identification is absolute”, or doesn’t it? That is all Logic states, that it either does or it doesn’t.

You cannot think or speak until you accept Logic; “A=A”; “It is whatever it is”. Anything ELSE you might think about it, is up for grabs.