Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[JackDaydream]

I am writing a thread on the idea of uncertainty based on reading the issue of 'New Philosopher: Uncertainty' (July-August 2022). This looks at the question of whether 'Uncertainty Rules' and the spectrum of certainty and uncertainty in philosophy. The issue of 'Knowledge vs. Opinion' is raised, beginning with David Hume's query whether sense impressions can be trusted and the various contributors offer various thoughts and I will offer some of the ideas as a basis for discussion.

In one article,' Taking Risks', Sir David Spiegelhalter speaks of uncertainty in life. He says,
'I think of uncontrollable uncertainty about the future. It's sometimes called aleatory uncertainty, or chance- when you don't know what's going to happen.'
As far as I see it life is extremely unpredictable on a personal and wider level. The author is looking at the nature of risks in life, so juggling potential possibilities and the unpredictable are both important in thinking about action in the context of what may or may not happen. The future of humanity is uncertain and Mariana Alessandra, 'In Relentless Uncertainty', remarks that, 'In 1843 Soren Kierkergaard dated us to look straight into the face of doom and not blink'.

Stephen Law, argues that,
'Many of us desire certainty. We don't just want to believe, or even have fairly good grounds for believing. We want more still: cast-iron certainty.' This includes the investigations of empirical science.

Different philosophers have considered the idea of certainty, including Wittgenstein, who suggested, 'The difference between the concept of knowing' and the concept of 'being certain', except where "I know" is meant to mean: I can't be wrong'. I am asking you to think about the philosophical ideas about certainty and uncertainty. How much is certain or uncertain in life and philosophy?

[JackDaydream]

I am aware that the topic which I raise involves practical and epistemological uncertainties. The two may be different, to some extent, although I would question how this comes into play in the nature of understanding. To what extent are the philosophical questions different from the understanding of the enfoldment of reality, as apparent in the search for personal meaning and understanding?

[JackDaydream]

It may be that this thread will not generate much discussion at all as it may seem too weak to be worthy of consideration at all. Personally, what I find so depressing on philosophy forums is that flamed opinions and ranting seem to often be more important than arguments. I do value philosophy forum discussion but have some reservations when it comes down to trying to put others' ideas down. Of course, I am not suggesting that there should not be philosophy arguments as these may be essential in trying to think about the areas of debate. My own area of concern is about careful judgments and thinking, but I feel that, sometimes, on philosophy forums like this, that any sense of impartiality and a wider sense of searching may be disregarded in preference for trying to win arguments, rather than the ongoing search for truth. I am aware that the idea of truth, especially with a capital 'T'is questionable, but my hope is that this does not mean that ranting and raving about one's own preferences and ideas is not the only possibility. So, I am interested in looking at areas of certainty and uncertainty, with an underlying perspective of the way in which human beings, in their grasp for understanding, see knowledge from various angles, which may entail rationality and the psychological aspects of knowledge and thinking.

[GE Morton]

I am aware that the topic which I raise involves practical and epistemological uncertainties. The two may be different, to some extent, although I would question how this comes into play in the nature of understanding. To what extent are the philosophical questions different from the understanding of the enfoldment of reality, as apparent in the search for personal meaning and understanding?

You may wish to peruse Wittgenstein's comments on that topic. They were compiled from his notes after his death and published as a short book, On Certainty. It is here:

https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/wit ... tainty.pdf

A more interesting question for me is this "search for personal meaning and understanding." What is that, exactly? How does one know when one has found it?

[JackDaydream]

Thank you for the link and I will try to read it fully. Wittgenstein approached many of the important areas of philosophy, including the nature of language and uncertainty. For some this may be appear tedious, but my own view is that the looking at such areas is extremely important in the rational examination of understanding, so that philosophy does not come down to personal opinion. Rational understanding, even if with an awareness of human irrationality, may remain important as an essential aspect of philosophy, even amidst pluralism. There is the question of the objectives which may be found amidst the subjective, and intersubjectives, and how may be this be found in between the spectrum of certainty and uncertainty?

[JackDaydream]

I am aware that the topic which I raise involves practical and epistemological uncertainties. The two may be different, to some extent, although I would question how this comes into play in the nature of understanding. To what extent are the philosophical questions different from the understanding of the enfoldment of reality, as apparent in the search for personal meaning and understanding?

You may wish to peruse Wittgenstein's comments on that topic. They were compiled from his notes after his death and published as a short book, On Certainty. It is here:

https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/wit ... tainty.pdf

A more interesting question for me is this "search for personal meaning and understanding." What is that, exactly? How does one know when one has found it?

The question of person meaning may be more complex, but probably not as complicated as the idea of one which one which would be universal. It may be about the balancing of logic and mythology though, especially as so much of the personal involves elements of stories and mythic aspects. The whole area of logical explanation and stories is something in itself, especially in regard to many of the mysterious aspects of understanding of life and consciousness.

[The Beast]

The apocalypse describing collisions are convoluted distortions fitting this time of the year. To the world is going to end, the new addition is the Universe is going to end and the proof is in the examples provided. This Jack is much more interesting to me as it is the human puzzle. War; suffering and the various dilemmas in the workings of the mind. You can be certain that your posts are interesting to me and your opinions express degrees of uncertainty I do not see in others. It is important and revealing and suggestive, and it is certain in my mind. In others, I see posts describing such ending of the Universe. How could anyone describe the end of the Universe and have any certainty about it? It seems subjective to a higher degree and much higher than the average human and certainly any philosopher. New obscure descriptions and illogical assumptions together in paradoxical grammar. What can be more interesting than this other than a virus in the white space coming from a foreign land and psycho-extorting opinions. I am certain I am feeling something. I am uncertain about what it means. Is it a virus? What is next? Certainty? Anyway. What is it mean the apocalypse in the mind? What is your opinion?

[kaleido]

I post here a section from my book The Straight Science, which somewhat deals with the concept of certainty.

"Just because a force has remained constant in the locally limited timeframe in which we’ve observed it, it does not mean that it will remain constant for eternity. Just because the sun has been rising in the East and setting in the West for as long as we can remember, it does not mean that tomorrow it will do so. Just because we have observed apples falling from their trees for millennia and have recently managed to model these observations with numbers and other assorted symbols so thoroughly and consistently that they suffice to help us predict where and how and when future apples will fall, it does not mean that these predictions will actually take place: it is certainly possible that the next apple you pick from its branch off may start flying upwards instead of falling down. And with your next blink of an eye you might observe your feet are six-fingered."

For us this then means that "certainty" is nothing other than a constant force.

[JackDaydream]

The apocalypse describing collisions are convoluted distortions fitting this time of the year. To the world is going to end, the new addition is the Universe is going to end and the proof is in the examples provided. This Jack is much more interesting to me as it is the human puzzle. War; suffering and the various dilemmas in the workings of the mind. You can be certain that your posts are interesting to me and your opinions express degrees of uncertainty I do not see in others. It is important and revealing and suggestive, and it is certain in my mind. In others, I see posts describing such ending of the Universe. How could anyone describe the end of the Universe and have any certainty about it? It seems subjective to a higher degree and much higher than the average human and certainly any philosopher. New obscure descriptions and illogical assumptions together in paradoxical grammar. What can be more interesting than this other than a virus in the white space coming from a foreign land and psycho-extorting opinions. I am certain I am feeling something. I am uncertain about what it means. Is it a virus? What is next? Certainty? Anyway. What is it mean the apocalypse in the mind? What is your opinion?

My own understanding of the inner apocalypse, which may go back to the Gnostic ideas involves the potential of the future. It may be about the juncture in understanding and action, especially in relation to the many conflicts which appear to human beings existentially. My own basic experience is partly related to the Jungian understanding of inner experience, but while inner experience is the starting point, it may have profound implications in how it it becomes manifest in action in the world, especially in ethics and politics, as the outer manifestations of ideas.

[JackDaydream]

I post here a section from my book The Straight Science, which somewhat deals with the concept of certainty.

"Just because a force has remained constant in the locally limited timeframe in which we’ve observed it, it does not mean that it will remain constant for eternity. Just because the sun has been rising in the East and setting in the West for as long as we can remember, it does not mean that tomorrow it will do so. Just because we have observed apples falling from their trees for millennia and have recently managed to model these observations with numbers and other assorted symbols so thoroughly and consistently that they suffice to help us predict where and how and when future apples will fall, it does not mean that these predictions will actually take place: it is certainly possible that the next apple you pick from its branch off may start flying upwards instead of falling down. And with your next blink of an eye you might observe your feet are six-fingered."

For us this then means that "certainty" is nothing other than a constant force.

I am grateful for you sharing your ideas. The idea of how things appear to be and constancy are important. It may be that in rational thinking the regularities are taken for granted. The idea of the natural, as opposed to the supernatural, is often taken as a given in science. Even then, the complexity of manifestation in nature may be more complex than the way in which commonsense expectations may predict, with some unknown aspects or variables coming into play in life.

[Thomyum2]

I am writing a thread on the idea of uncertainty based on reading the issue of 'New Philosopher: Uncertainty' (July-August 2022). This looks at the question of whether 'Uncertainty Rules' and the spectrum of certainty and uncertainty in philosophy. The issue of 'Knowledge vs. Opinion' is raised, beginning with David Hume's query whether sense impressions can be trusted and the various contributors offer various thoughts and I will offer some of the ideas as a basis for discussion.

In one article,' Taking Risks', Sir David Spiegelhalter speaks of uncertainty in life. He says,
'I think of uncontrollable uncertainty about the future. It's sometimes called aleatory uncertainty, or chance- when you don't know what's going to happen.'
As far as I see it life is extremely unpredictable on a personal and wider level. The author is looking at the nature of risks in life, so juggling potential possibilities and the unpredictable are both important in thinking about action in the context of what may or may not happen. The future of humanity is uncertain and Mariana Alessandra, 'In Relentless Uncertainty', remarks that, 'In 1843 Soren Kierkergaard dated us to look straight into the face of doom and not blink'.

Stephen Law, argues that,
'Many of us desire certainty. We don't just want to believe, or even have fairly good grounds for believing. We want more still: cast-iron certainty.' This includes the investigations of empirical science.

Different philosophers have considered the idea of certainty, including Wittgenstein, who suggested, 'The difference between the concept of knowing' and the concept of 'being certain', except where "I know" is meant to mean: I can't be wrong'. I am asking you to think about the philosophical ideas about certainty and uncertainty. How much is certain or uncertain in life and philosophy?

Hello Jack,

My thought, for what it's worth, is that certainly is not properly a subject for philosophy but is more likely a matter for psychology. To me, 'certainty' only expresses an individual's level of confidence about their own knowledge or ability to predict something, and nothing more than that. As such, it's just an expression of a subjective state and not a word that can be used to meaningfully describe anything objectively. Consider that on a given question, two different people might express two different degrees of certainty about the same thing. It tells us something about each of their own feelings but not about the question about which they feel this way. And just for the sake of discussion, let's say that we were to assert that it could be conclusively stated that some fact is certain. Then one could follow with the question: how certain can we be that our determination of certainty is correct? It becomes an infinite regress, sort of like Lewis Carroll's What the Tortoise Said to Achilles.

Personally, I treat claims of certainty with a very high degree of skepticism. There's a saying I like (with many variations and attributed to various people) that one should believe those who seek the truth but doubt those who find it. And I think there's a very good reason that Socrates' wisdom is often cited in his statement that "I neither know nor think I know".

[JackDaydream]

I post here a section from my book The Straight Science, which somewhat deals with the concept of certainty.

"Just because a force has remained constant in the locally limited timeframe in which we’ve observed it, it does not mean that it will remain constant for eternity. Just because the sun has been rising in the East and setting in the West for as long as we can remember, it does not mean that tomorrow it will do so. Just because we have observed apples falling from their trees for millennia and have recently managed to model these observations with numbers and other assorted symbols so thoroughly and consistently that they suffice to help us predict where and how and when future apples will fall, it does not mean that these predictions will actually take place: it is certainly possible that the next apple you pick from its branch off may start flying upwards instead of falling down. And with your next blink of an eye you might observe your feet are six-fingered."

For us this then means that "certainty" is nothing other than a constant force.

I am grateful for you sharing your ideas. The idea of how things appear to be and constancy are important. It may be that in rational thinking the regularities are taken for granted. The idea of the natural, as opposed to the supernatural, is often taken as a given in science. Even then, the complexity of manifestation in nature may be more complex than the way in which commonsense expectations may predict, with some unknown aspects or variables coming into play in life.

It may be that certainty is more an aspect of psychology than philosophy, although the rationale for this may involve some degree of regularity and consistency. The irregularities may be part of the problem, even within the science of psychology. You speak of the importance of constancy and it may be evaluated in different ways. So much of life, and natural laws appear as constant do appear to be stable. Night and day, as well as the seasons appear constant, despite some irregularities connected to climate change.

These laws and patterns are an essential basis for predicting, although the nature of the irregular can be recognized, especially in the thinking of Nassim Taleb, in his idea of 'black swans' as the unexpected which may occur, with a need t l be integrated in the wider spectrum of patterns of events in causality and the events of life. Observations may involve such awareness of such events and occurrences in the enfoldment of patterns and occurrences as aspects of nature, in spite of how they may be explained.

[JackDaydream]

I am writing a thread on the idea of uncertainty based on reading the issue of 'New Philosopher: Uncertainty' (July-August 2022). This looks at the question of whether 'Uncertainty Rules' and the spectrum of certainty and uncertainty in philosophy. The issue of 'Knowledge vs. Opinion' is raised, beginning with David Hume's query whether sense impressions can be trusted and the various contributors offer various thoughts and I will offer some of the ideas as a basis for discussion.

In one article,' Taking Risks', Sir David Spiegelhalter speaks of uncertainty in life. He says,
'I think of uncontrollable uncertainty about the future. It's sometimes called aleatory uncertainty, or chance- when you don't know what's going to happen.'
As far as I see it life is extremely unpredictable on a personal and wider level. The author is looking at the nature of risks in life, so juggling potential possibilities and the unpredictable are both important in thinking about action in the context of what may or may not happen. The future of humanity is uncertain and Mariana Alessandra, 'In Relentless Uncertainty', remarks that, 'In 1843 Soren Kierkergaard dated us to look straight into the face of doom and not blink'.

Stephen Law, argues that,
'Many of us desire certainty. We don't just want to believe, or even have fairly good grounds for believing. We want more still: cast-iron certainty.' This includes the investigations of empirical science.

Different philosophers have considered the idea of certainty, including Wittgenstein, who suggested, 'The difference between the concept of knowing' and the concept of 'being certain', except where "I know" is meant to mean: I can't be wrong'. I am asking you to think about the philosophical ideas about certainty and uncertainty. How much is certain or uncertain in life and philosophy?

Hello Jack,

My thought, for what it's worth, is that certainly is not properly a subject for philosophy but is more likely a matter for psychology. To me, 'certainty' only expresses an individual's level of confidence about their own knowledge or ability to predict something, and nothing more than that. As such, it's just an expression of a subjective state and not a word that can be used to meaningfully describe anything objectively. Consider that on a given question, two different people might express two different degrees of certainty about the same thing. It tells us something about each of their own feelings but not about the question about which they feel this way. And just for the sake of discussion, let's say that we were to assert that it could be conclusively stated that some fact is certain. Then one could follow with the question: how certain can we be that our determination of certainty is correct? It becomes an infinite regress, sort of like Lewis Carroll's What the Tortoise Said to Achilles.

Personally, I treat claims of certainty with a very high degree of skepticism. There's a saying I like (with many variations and attributed to various people) that one should believe those who seek the truth but doubt those who find it. And I think there's a very good reason that Socrates' wisdom is often cited in his statement that "I neither know nor think I know".

Certainly may be treated with scepticism, and based on the way in which human beings project and form ideas in the human mind. It may be hard to demonstrate clear facts, even though this is what is often sought in evidence based research. Nevertheless, bias may be inherent in human judgement, which may lead to dispute about objectivity, and the nature of subjectivity as a basis for ideas and knowledge, especially as individuals come from unique individuals perspectives in thought, based on perception and critical reflection of thought.

[JackDaydream]

I am aware that the topic which I raise involves practical and epistemological uncertainties. The two may be different, to some extent, although I would question how this comes into play in the nature of understanding. To what extent are the philosophical questions different from the understanding of the enfoldment of reality, as apparent in the search for personal meaning and understanding?

You may wish to peruse Wittgenstein's comments on that topic. They were compiled from his notes after his death and published as a short book, On Certainty. It is here:

https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/wit ... tainty.pdf

A more interesting question for me is this "search for personal meaning and understanding." What is that, exactly? How does one know when one has found it?

I have been reading the link and it does give rise to the question of the existence of the external world. This may be where perception and interpretation become complex, especially in the certainty of 'reality'. In everyday experience, it is likely that the basic assumptions of reality and a certain degree of predictability are adhered to, but with s possible background of uncertainties in the philosophic background as the 'unknown" or aspects for debate.

[GE Morton]

I have been reading the link and it does give rise to the question of the existence of the external world. This may be where perception and interpretation become complex, especially in the certainty of 'reality'. In everyday experience, it is likely that the basic assumptions of reality and a certain degree of predictability are adhered to, but with s possible background of uncertainties in the philosophic background as the 'unknown" or aspects for debate.

Well, what is "real," or what constitutes "reality," is the root problem of philosophy. Consul and I have been kicking that around for a few weeks now in the "Materialism is nonsensical" thread.

I generally agree with Thomyum that "certainty" is more a psychological state than a philosophical problem; as ordinarily used, it just refers to the degree of confidence one has in a particular belief. But there is a philosophical question regarding how much confidence in a particular belief is warranted --- and regarding what warrants that degree of confidence. And, of course that Alfie is certain the P is true supplies no evidence that it is true.

There are, however, some objective certainties --- beliefs that cannot possibly be wrong. Those are the "analytic" truths, i.e., "All triangles have 3 sides." They are necessarily true, by virtue of the meanings of the words employed. But for any synthetic proposition there is always a logical possibility it could be false. So for those at most "practical" certainty is warranted, not "complete certainty."