Science should be understood as a method to learn about the universe; science's job is to describe the universe's behavior, why do you think that science must prove science?

In order to achieve absolute certainty, science must prove science, otherwise we are left with just probability.

Which methods of obtaining knowledge, if any, would you say do bring certainty? That science doesn't bring certainty is true, but only trivially so, it would seem, as virtually nothing about our beliefs are certain. Even the most homely and humble beliefs about our existence are subject to doubt, at least in principle. (By the way, any scientist worth his salt will the first to tell you that scientific theories are forever uncertain and subject to constant revision and updating, so you seem to be tilting at windmills a bit.)

The thing is why is bringing absolute certainty a job of science?

I don't believe there are any ways to bring certainty. Nothing can actually be proven, but often must be assumed to a degree. Even one's own existence must be assumed.

I don't believe it to be the job of science to bring about certainty, only the likelihood of something.

Then perhaps your thread should have been titled "Why Science (and theology, and testimony, and mathematics, and philosophy, and personal reflection, and revelation, and meditation[...]) Can't Bring Certainty." Again, I don't know what reputable thinker believes that scientific theories are certain. Indeed, the degree of uncertainty is very often quantified by means of p values, confidence intervals and the like.

Is this your argument:

1). Empiricism is the only way to learn about anything.
2). But empiricism can't prove that empiricism is the only to learn about anything.
Therefore, empiricism can't prove that empiricism is the only way to learn about anything.

There, this better now? Yes, I don't think anyone who has studied much has ever declared such, and this is just a recent annoyance that has come to my attention because there are some people, religious and nonreligious people who think that things can be known with certainty.

Except I didn't necessarily say that empiricism is the only way to learn about anything.

I know, but is that what you are trying to prove that naive empiricism is self-refuting?

Yes, I think so. :smile: That the more one knows, the more one must realize he or she doesn't know.

okay, well I think that many people treat empiricism and science as identical things, but they are not; science is a method of studying the universe and empiricism is an epistemic position of how one comes to know something.

:party: Yes they do, and it drives me crazy. We can't really know anything, only believe things.

I don't think that many epistemic positions can provide absolute certainty about anything though.

Yeah, which is what I said, but there are some annoying people who say they can.

As one point made by Hume, what reason do we to have to suppose that things will continue on as they always have? What reason do we have to suppose that the laws of physics will be the same in 500 years? We can't prove this, except to say that that's the way things have always been. — Waya

Because reality is constant. If it wasn't then nothing, including the identity of our selves, would be constant.

Through many generations of investigation, humanity has acquired the concept of reality and its absoluteness. This reality is understood to be fundamental to everything as well as constant in its expression of everything. The constancy is expressed through principles or laws which govern how everything is designated to be. And because the fundamental cause is the same then the effects will mirror that consistency. Basically, like begets like. Therefore, a constant reality will reflect a constant array of phenomena.

Our (un)certainty is born of a state of relativity and therefore does not reflect the whole of reality. Nevertheless, relative certainty is still certainty, to a degree. Otherwise, why would you suppose there are things? Why would you suppose there's a Hume? Why would you suppose this forum exists? Why would anything be for which you interact with? Why would you be?

Isn't your beingness the object/subject of most certitude? And, hasn't everything else been derived in relation to that?

Sorry, the previous post was a bit of rumbling as I sought my footing. Anyway, in conclusion, you and anyone else, can only be absolutely sure of themselves. Regardless of whether you understand your circumstances or not, you must recognise your self. I believe that is the proof of certainty which you seek.

Because reality is constant. If it wasn't then nothing, including the identity of our selves, would be constant.

Through many generations of investigation, humanity has acquired the concept of reality and its absoluteness. This reality is understood to be fundamental to everything as well as constant in its expression of everything. The constancy is expressed through principles or laws which govern how everything is designated to be. And because the fundamental cause is the same then the effects will mirror that consistency. Basically, like begets like. Therefore, a constant reality will reflect a constant array of phenomena. — BrianW

That seems to be just the point Hume made. We have no reason to believe things will always be the way they are, except that that's the way they always were. There is no reason for this, and can't be proven. It is a basic assumption we must believe to be merely functional.

Anyway, in conclusion, you and anyone else, can only be absolutely sure of themselves. Regardless of whether you understand your circumstances or not, you must recognize your self. I believe that is the proof of certainty which you seek. — BrianW

I am not sure of myself and see no way to prove it. I simply assume I exist and what I see is probably true. It is impossible to prove it. Life could just be a grand illusion, all the interactions are just products of an overly active imagination.

Uncertainty is freedom from having to be right all the time, If the internet is full of incessantly boring think-they-know-it-alls now, imagine what it would be like if there was certainty! Uncertainty is what makes life worth living!

Many people proclaim that science and reason possess the answer to everything. — Waya

They probably got that impression from Science's ability to heal the sick and make hydrogen bombs.

A few notes on being certain.

It would be wrong to argue from the observation that science does not produce certainty to the conclusion that we can never be certain. There are things other than science. Can you be certain that you are in pain? Or better, can you doubt that you are in pain?

Because doubt is the antithesis of certainty. Just as falsehood is the antithesis of truth.

Certainty and doubt are about belief, not truth. You are certain when your belief is such that you do not doubt.

Like when you are reading this without doubting that it is written in English. Only now that I have mentioned it, do you start to wonder if this is really a thread about English Sports Cars.

That is, it's all a bit more complex than you might have at first thought.

Science is merely the observations and conclusions of faulty human beings. — Waya

There's always a certain irony in using computers to express such sentiments.

I am not sure of myself and see no way to prove it. I simply assume I exist and what I see is probably true. It is impossible to prove it. Life could just be a grand illusion, all the interactions are just products of an overly active imagination. — Waya

An illusion to whom?

I am not sure of myself and see no way to prove it. I simply assume I exist and what I see is probably true. — Waya

That "I" or "self" is the certainty of which I speak of. How did you arrive at an I which assumes, or which can be (un)certain of anything, or can observe to see what is (un)true. That self which you may or may not understand how it came to be is the certainty everyone has. And its the reference point from which everything else is perceived.

It is impossible to prove it. — Waya

The self is proved by its participation in all of a person's activities. When does a person lack the "I". Never. Therefore, it's impossible not to prove it. It is impossible to deny it.

Life could just be a grand illusion, all the interactions are just products of an overly active imagination. — Waya

Illusions, imaginations, interactions, etc, must exist somewhere real. If life is an illusion or imagination, then where is it taking place? In a mind? Whose/what mind?

Nothing is more certain than "I AM". Otherwise there's no reality, no existence, no truth, no illusions, no nothing. So, this argument in itself is proof of something, a certainty. We may not be able to comprehensively define it, but it is undeniable.

Hume's observations on certainty are brilliant, but the most important thing he said about it is usually ignored.

"I cannot be certain that this dinner will not poison me
.....................
but I am going to eat it anyway"

In the second half of that sentence lies his distillation of the central wisdom of Stoicism, Buddhism, and other great worldviews and religions that help us to understand, accept and then maybe even rejoice in the uncertainty of the world.

The Stoic sages advise us to imagine each the day the loss of that which is dear to us. They suggest that it will both help prepare us for its eventual inevitable loss and help us to appreciate it (them) while it (they) are present.

Gil Fronsdal, a dharma teacher I admire, sums up the three key themes of Buddhism - Impermanence (Anitya), Suffering (Dukkha) and Non-self (Sunyata) as:

1. Nothing lasts forever
2. It hurts
3. But don't take it personally

Beatnik mystic Alan Watts compared our life to that of a person that has fallen off a cliff at the same time as a boulder has fallen. Our instinct is to cling to the boulder, and that is what most do. But the boulder offers no protection - there is no certainty to be had. He advocates ignoring the boulder and enjoying the flight, with all the freedom of movement and exhilaration it brings, whether it be long or short.

My own experience is that embracing uncertainty, rejoicing in it rather than desperately searching for ways to dispel it, is a route to liberation and loss of angst. One doesn't necessarily reach enlightenment (at least, a monkey-mind busyfish like me doesn't) but one learns to relax, and a certain degree of contentment arises.

My favourite sage of all on this topic is an imaginary one: a fictional priest, the Abbé something-or-other who wrote a philosophical book that the hero - Flora Poste - was reading. The book was said to be 'about the fundamental incomprehensibility of the universe'. I was struck by that notion and it has always stayed with me. It doesn't mean one should distrust science. In fact I am a total science nerd and spend much of my spare time doing physics and maths. It just suggests we acknowledge the limitations of science, and uncertainty is one of those.

Uncertainty is freedom from having to be right all the time, If the internet is full of incessantly boring think-they-know-it-alls now, imagine what it would be like if there was certainty! Uncertainty is what makes life worth living! — Happenstance

Perhaps. It is a curious matter indeed, but at times it gets old and some get sick of guessing all the time.

They probably got that impression from Science's ability to heal the sick and make hydrogen bombs. — frank

:razz:

A few notes on being certain.

It would be wrong to argue from the observation that science does not produce certainty to the conclusion that we can never be certain. There are things other than science. Can you be certain that you are in pain? Or better, can you doubt that you are in pain?

Because doubt is the antithesis of certainty. Just as falsehood is the antithesis of truth.

Certainty and doubt are about belief, not truth. You are certain when your belief is such that you do not doubt.

Like when you are reading this without doubting that it is written in English. Only now that I have mentioned it, do you start to wonder if this is really a thread about English Sports Cars.

That is, it's all a bit more complex than you might have at first thought. — Banno

No, I cannot be certain I am in pain. For example, there are phantom pains from people with amputated limbs. Also, from my personal experience, I could be in pain one moment, but chose to suppress it so that I no longer feel it.
Well, I have no way of actually knowing that this thread even exists. It may just be my imagination.

There's always a certain irony in using computers to express such sentiments. — Wayfarer

Haha, funny.

An illusion to whom? — Andrew M

An illusion to the perceiver.

That "I" or "self" is the certainty of which I speak of. How did you arrive at an I which assumes, or which can be (un)certain of anything, or can observe to see what is (un)true. That self which you may or may not understand how it came to be is the certainty everyone has. And its the reference point from which everything else is perceived. — BrianW

I am not certain that I exist, but I believe I exist. It is an assumption. Who am I? That is something I cannot answer. I see myself as stupid, lazy, ugly, and worthless, but someone else may see me as someone valuable and beautiful. So, who am I?

Hume's observations on certainty are brilliant, but the most important thing he said about it is usually ignored.

"I cannot be certain that this dinner will not poison me
.....................
but I am going to eat it anyway"

In the second half of that sentence lies his distillation of the central wisdom of Stoicism, Buddhism, and other great worldviews and religions that help us to understand, accept and then maybe even rejoice in the uncertainty of the world.

The Stoic sages advise us to imagine each the day the loss of that which is dear to us. They suggest that it will both help prepare us for its eventual inevitable loss and help us to appreciate it (them) while it (they) are present. — andrewk

Yes, which is where the assumption and calculation of likelihood must come into play. Hume could not know that he wouldn't be poisoned, but he chose to believe it to be probably okay and consumed it anyway.

Hmm, so basically the Stoics say to avoid attachment?

An illusion to the perceiver. — Waya

So that is Descartes' proof of one's own existence. Whether perceiving correctly or incorrectly, there is always a subject doing so. Your existence is implicit in both your perceptions and misperceptions, belief and doubt.