Towards radical skepticism:
Philosophically, I am a radical skeptic. That is, if we think of "knowing" as meaning certain knowledge, then I don't think there is anything we can know, because all such knowledge is based on observation (which can be faulty), logic (which can be faulty) or faith (which is usually faulty).
How do we know that logic always works?\
Rather than knowing and not knowing, I think we have degrees of sureness. I am very sure that my name is Peter. But not certain. I am pretty sure I will wake up tomorrow. I am reasonably sure that it will rain tomorrow (the forecast right now is at 100% chance, and the forecasts are pretty good for the next day).
Are you certain of anything? What? Why?
6
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
25 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
"Knowing" has nothing to do with being certain. Repeatable, measurable and peer reviewed reports and tests are the scale.
Otherwise you are just guessing with your limited knowledge.
PondartIncbendog
Level 8
Apr 25, 2020
4
There have been repeatable, measurable, peer reviewed findings that turned out to be wrong.
E.g. Many experiments showed that Newtonian physics was correct. But it isn't (although it comes very close).
Wikipedia has a whole page of superseded theories [en.wikipedia.org]
@plf515 What is your point?
@PondartIncbendog That we can't really know anything
@plf515 You mean like carbon dating?
There is a large swath of things we have a high enough degree of certainty about to legitimately use the semantic shortcut of saying we know it. And most things we have some degree of uncertainty about, still fit with past experience and the shared experience of others sufficiently that you can plan around them. This is sufficient.
The thing people need more than "radical skepticism" really is "epistemological humility" around things that are ethically or morally ambiguous and exist in complex and unpredictable causal chains. People get over-invested in their ideas and are unable to flex or adjust in response to outcomes.
mordant
Level 8
Apr 26, 2020
1
I think much of what we know, although not necessarily everything, is perhaps only highly probable and never really absolutely certain.
AlasBabylon
Level 8
Apr 26, 2020
2
Maths, physics and the Scientific Method go a long way to replicating what is certain
Geoffrey51
Level 8
Apr 25, 2020
3
almost all, huh
Not at all. Math, to quote Bertrand Russell, is "the only subject in which we never know what we are talking about or whether what we are saying is true". Physics, well, at one time, physics said the Earth was the center of the universe. Then physics said, for a long time, that the universe was basically Newtonian. Ooops. As to scientific method, it's not certain or uncertain, it's just a method.
@plf515 I Well, that will be me told then!
@plf515 Russell also coined Truth Function. So, according to the law of excluded middle, p or ~p, if p is true, then ~p is false, so, p or ~p is true. If p is false, then ~p is true, so, p or ~p is true. Regardless of whether the propositions happen to be true or false, their disjunction is true. That’s a necessary truth.
Science seems to be a mere approximation of truth. It’s always just out of reach. However, logic/math is different.
@TheMiddleWay it’s still truth functional and within those constraints, it’s still certain.
@TheMiddleWay I understand entirely. I think the concept of truth is obscure at best. If the only certainty you have is logically necessary truth, then you don’t have very much. But it is certain, however irrelevant.
You can go right back to the whole "I think therefore I am" kind of malarky but in the end, it all works out in the wash. On the one hand, the world is real. On the other, it is an illusion but either way, it fucking hurts when a hammer falls on your foot. So real or not, wear your steel toe-caps
273kelvin
Level 8
Apr 25, 2020
1
Unless you "know" its going to miss you. Then wear the shoes on your head.
@PondartIncbendog Just as Murphy's law assumes that if something can happen it will. Then we have to assume a non-illusionary world because the results are exactly the same. Given that, to my mind, it then becomes a non-question.
@273kelvin I should wear my shoes on my head then?
@Bn4fE5 Like any law it is neither optimistic or pessimistic. In Murphy`s case, it related to ejection seat tests. So it would be worst-case scenarios but someone will win the lottery or break the bank at Monte Carlo. One day the lights will all be on green when you commute and all red another day
Well spoken, hitting at kind of the core issue about "reality" here. Which as you'll see from my name here, I consider a bit of a matter of perspective - tough to define.
Observer-Effect
Level 7
Apr 25, 2020
1
Definitely in these cases is where the Agnosticism comes in. Excellent share. Made me think a little.
CommunityTom
Level 7
Apr 28, 2020
1
What we perceive through the medium of our senses is subjective, how could it be otherwise? Are we all brains in a vat experiencing a "Matrix" existence? Who knows? Perhaps we're just living in a shared definition of reality. Or, we should, at least, share this reality if we want to survive. Just as our ancestors agreed, for the most part, that the saber-toothed tiger was a threat to be avoided, so should we as a species recognize the threats we face, such as pandemics and climate change.
All knowledge, including what we know today as scientific facts, is provisional, subject to future revision. To assume otherwise is to fossilize our understanding of the universe--a process frequently practiced by religion.
p-nullifidian
Level 8
Apr 27, 2020
1
What's the difference between a skeptic and a radical skeptic? Is that similar to excited and 'super' excited? 
Pompey
Level 6
Apr 27, 2020
1
I only know one thing for sure, and that is that I only know one thing for sure. So far as the nature and foundation of reality, I am totally bewildered. The findings of science are superficial.
Great post!
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Apr 26, 2020
1
Thanks!
I am certain that the Bible is not the word of an honest and perfect god. I have proved to myself that it is full of false prophecies, contradictions and impossible stories.
BestWithoutGods
Level 8
Apr 26, 2020
0
The laws of excluded middle, non contradiction and identity seem certain to me.
Gatovicolo
Level 8
Apr 25, 2020
0
well, but that is because we are raised with the competitive, Hegelian dialectic rhough. Playing baseball games to a deliberate tie makes no sense to us
@bbyrd009 well, you’re either right or you’re wrong. It has nothing to do with competition. It’s reality.
@Gatovicolo or at least the law of the jungle eh
fwiw Easterners, Far East, are raised to reason differently, and our "reality" makes as little sense to them as theirs does to us, apparently
@bbyrd009 no
[web.stanford.edu]
Mathematics/logic are universal across cultures.
@Gatovicolo, @TheMiddleWay i guess pi is only valid for perfect circles? doesnt exist in nature iow?
@bbyrd009 Perfect circles? Hmmm. Circles are, by definition, a universal concept. So all circles are perfect. If the ellipsoid is not a perfect circle, then it is not a circle.
I absolutely know that i am here and that a real death awaits me....other than that...NOPE
HerbertNewsam
Level 6
Apr 25, 2020
0
How do you know you are here?
@plf515 lol. Yeah, right. Have a nice day.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.