What do you know for certain?

[tonyrey]

Science is in a Black Hole if it has no philosophical foundation!

No branch of knowledge, no matter how successful, can establish its own foundation because amongst other principles it presupposes the validity of reasoning and the intelligibility of the universe.

 

[Fomalhaut]

No branch of knowledge, no matter how successful, can establish its own foundation because amongst other principles it presupposes the validity of reasoning and the intelligibility of the universe.

Well, it’s true, but science does not claim to be reaching an actual perfect knowledge. It really just a tool. It actually protects itself from this very problem by only providing approximations and models, never permanent reality.

 

[tonyrey]

No branch of knowledge, no matter how successful, can establish its own foundation because amongst other principles it presupposes the validity of reasoning and the intelligibility of the universe.

As far as I know no other discipline makes that claim…

It really just a tool. It actually protects itself from this very problem by only providing approximations and models, never permanent reality.

It is interesting you refer to “permanent reality”. Do you believe everything is transitory?

 

[Fomalhaut]

It is interesting you refer to “permanent reality”. Do you believe everything is transitory?

I should have said “absolute truth”. I believe physics law are permanent in this day and age. Maybe in the thermodynamic death of the universe they will change, and maybe they were different at a very early stage of the universe. I still don’t get your point, could you state it more clearly ?

 

[tonyrey]

I should have said “absolute truth”. I believe physics law are permanent in this day and age. Maybe in the thermodynamic death of the universe they will change, and maybe they were different at a very early stage of the universe. I still don’t get your point, could you state it more clearly ?

There is no reason to suppose science is more comprehensive, more significant or more certain than any other form of knowledge - assuming there are degrees of certainty…

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think one can have logical certainty (although I’m not certain of this…), no matter how confident one might be that a logical progression has been followed.

I think we can recognise logical principles like the laws of identity and non-contradiction. A thing cannot be itself and not itself, for example.

Logical certainty would depend upon the absolute truth of one’s premises, since the rules of logic can draw logically valid conclusions from any given premise, no matter how dubious.

The premise that we exist is as close to certainty as one can get. Otherwise certainty itself is in a precarious position!

If I assume correctly, you are attempting to elicit some acknowledgement of the ‘truth’ of your previous assertion, on other threads, that the only things of which we can be certain are our own impressions, feelings - basically anything we perceive from the inside of our mental processes.

Can you offer an alternative?

But ‘knowledge’, as such, doesn’t work from purely internal mechanisms - we rely upon the perceptions of others to reinforce - and, quite often, correct - our own perceptions and impressions.

No one can reinforce or correct our perceptions and impressions of our interior experiences.

So whilst it may be the case that the only information to which we have immediate access is that which our own internal faculties can process, we also have the tendency to look for further information against which to test the accuracy of our perceptions.

That is true with regard to other persons and material objects but not to our inner world.

The whole edifice of science, indeed, is built upon this tendency, and the awareness that we must correct for the inadequacies of our internal faculties. Unless one is a complete solipsist, this approach seems quite unproblematic…

I entirely agree.

 

[tonyrey]

In both cases the question “Why?” arises. What distinguishes them as far as certainty is concerned?

Let’s look back at what was said.

A fact about which there is no reasonable doubt whatsoever - and on which you would be prepared to stake your life!

“A fact”
I’ll take “fact” to mean “proposition” since there is the question on the truth value of what the person is considering. “Fact” could be interpreted to mean that what is being considered has already been found to be true.

It may be irrelevant here but a fact may also be an undiscovered truth!

“about which there is no reasonable doubt whatsoever”

I think this is the better part of your definition and probably a sufficient definition by it self. This still refers to a feeling (or lack of a feeling:doubt). The word “reasonable” may be superfluous as some one can feel certain about things that are not seen as reasonable by others.

That is true but very often there is a general consensus - as in science - based on events rather than feelings.

“and on which you would be prepared to stake your life!”

I think this part may not necessarily be applicable. In being risk averse one might not be willing to risk their life on something for which they feel certain. Or one may be willing to stake their life on something for which she is uncertain. (Some people do this for the thrill they get from it).

That is where “reasonable” comes in!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

What do I know for certain?

I know that I exist.

I know that I can relate to others.

I know that truth exists.

I know that lies exist.

I know that I can lie to myself.

I know that some things are good and some things are bad.

I know that love is good and hate is bad.

I know that 2+2=4.

I know that actions have consequences.

I know lots of other things for certain.

I know it cracks me up when others say nothing is certain.

 

[Joy2day]

I think that some people know some things for certain, but as far as being able to prove this to everyone else - well you certainly cannot do that. I know for certain that the shroud exists and Jesus rose from the dead - but I know for certain that I cannot prove this to everyone.

 

[tonyrey]

What do I know for certain?

I know that I exist.

I know that I can relate to others.

I know that truth exists.

I know that lies exist.

I know that I can lie to myself.

I know that some things are good and some things are bad.

I know that love is good and hate is bad.

I know that 2+2=4.

I know that actions have consequences.

I know lots of other things for certain.

I know it cracks me up when others say nothing is certain.

I agree with you but the problem is how we know these facts - considering that animals don’t have such insight or understanding…

 

[Pugsly]

How do you know it and how would you demonstrate that it is certain?

Descarte had “de cart before the horse”…it should have been…I am therefore I think

Therefore, thinking makes for personal certitude of existence…and certitude=truth.

 

[tonyrey]

Descarte had “de cart before the horse”…it should have been…I am therefore I think

Therefore, thinking makes for personal certitude of existence…and certitude=truth.

How do you know you exist before you begin to think?

I think you’re putting the body before the mind.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I know a lot of things for certain. Why would I bother to demonstrate that they are and what makes you think my certainties are demonstrable to anyone else? Or should be?

And right you are Julia, just hang onto that. Idealists will talk and talk until you are convinced nothing exists.

The foundation of knowledge and therefore of all certainty is that the extra mental world exists, it is a self-evident fact, a given. Self evident facts are just accepted, they cannot be proven. Our human nature was designed to perceive and know the self evident. Our senses perceive the data emanating from the extramental world. This data is accompanied by the non-perceptive fact of existence. We perceive the fact of an existing thing, an existing entity in the data that reveales it. The universe exists for if it did not we would not only not know anything about it but we would not even know we existed.

This is the perennial debate that has existed since Descarte’s " Cogito ergo sum. " It ended in total skepticism for all who hold any form of " Dualism. " It is the only logical conclusion for them - though many of them deny the conclusion. Why? Because when not philosophizing they instinctively know they live in a real world, one that actually exists and they must function in it. So except for a few odd balls like Descartes and Kant they drop their dualism in their daily activities. It is only at the end of the day, sitting by the fireside and " reflecting on the self " that they become mentally deranged.

The problem with philosophy today, except for a few pockets of Thomism, is that they are all Idealist. And even a some who call themselves Thomists can’t entirely shake the " ghost " of Descartes. This is why the obsession with Epistomology. They are trying to prove the impossible, the self evident fact that the world exists and that it a function of our human nature to know that it does. We don’t need to sit around stairing at our navels to figure that out. We accept it and go about the job of living and making a living.
So hold fast to reality and keep your sanity.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s tragic that in our secular society people are exposed to the propaganda of materialists in the media to such an extent they regard the existence of material objects - such as the brain -as more certain than the existence of their own mind!

 

[miguel]

But what specific, experimental data can you provide for the existence of God? There are, as I understand, specific calculations that point to the existence of dark matter - what specific calculations point to the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent, creative, supernatural deity?

In answer to the question, "what do you know for certain? I think St Thomas Aquinas demonstrated the existence of God can be deduced from sound philosophical reasoning (i.e., it is not necessary to rely solely on divine revelation to know this). Because of this, I think the Catholic Church would claim that particular fact can’t be easily dismissed as “faith”. A few years ago, some of us might have seen a very interesting film called Expelled. It discussed the dogmatism on the part of some in the scientific community regarding certain theories of evolution. I’m not a biologist. But my simpleton understanding…this branch of science pertains to how life changed once it came into existence. Another branch pertains to the origin of life. The film discussed both. What I found really fascinating was the discussion of the latter and specifically, the jump from inanimate matter to the highly organized single cell. The single cell is extremely complex…so complex that we humans don’t fully comprehend it…with DNA and reproduction barely scratching the surface. They were interviewing Richard Dawkins and asked him to comment specifically on this jump from inanimate matter to the cell. He suggested aliens. No scientific evidence for aliens, but it seemed to be an unavoidable aknowledgement of a higher intelligence IMO.

 

[tonyrey]

In answer to the question, "what do you know for certain? I think St Thomas Aquinas demonstrated the existence of God can be deduced from sound philosophical reasoning (i.e., it is not necessary to rely solely on divine revelation to know this). Because of this, I think the Catholic Church would claim that particular fact can’t be easily dismissed as “faith”. A few years ago, some of us might have seen a very interesting film called Expelled. It discussed the dogmatism on the part of some in the scientific community regarding certain theories of evolution. I’m not a biologist. But my simpleton understanding…this branch of science pertains to how life changed once it came into existence. Another branch pertains to the origin of life. The film discussed both. What I found really fascinating was the discussion of the latter and specifically, the jump from inanimate matter to the highly organized single cell. The single cell is extremely complex…so complex that we humans don’t fully comprehend it…with DNA and reproduction barely scratching the surface. They were interviewing Richard Dawkins and asked him to comment specifically on this jump from inanimate matter to the cell. He suggested aliens. No scientific evidence for aliens, but it seemed to be an unavoidable acknowledgement of a higher intelligence IMO.

He implied life presupposes life - without getting to the root of the matter…

 

[Robert_Sock]

Inner ‘voices’ exists for certain.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey
**
I agree with you but the problem is how we know these facts - considering that animals don’t have such insight or understanding… **

We know these things because out of all the animals God singled us out to know them by giving us a soul that can understand not only its own needs and passions, but can understand eternal values and aspire to eternity. This is the fatal flaw of atheism, that it sees no connection (because it is willfully blind) between itself and Divinity.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey
**
I agree with you but the problem is how we know these facts - considering that animals don’t have such insight or understanding… **

We know these things because out of all the animals God singled us out to know them by giving us a soul that can understand not only its own needs and passions, but can understand eternal values and aspire to eternity. This is the fatal flaw of atheism, that it sees no connection (because it is willfully blind) between itself and Divinity.

A fine answer. My only reservation is that not all atheism is wilful. I think much is due to being brainwashed by propaganda on the part of academics like Dawkins who abuse their prominence in society.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

**My only reservation is that not all atheism is wilful. I think much is due to being brainwashed by propaganda on the part of academics like Dawkins who abuse their prominence in society. **

Scientism in a tizzy. .