Holding something to be true just is holding that it could not be false. You are contradicting yourself. — Janus

Rubbish. It's common to treat things as true, even though we might be wrong. I believe the keys are in the tray, even though I might be wrong. I believe you have the capacity to understand this simple point, but I may be mistaken.

You may be making the error described by Kenny in the second paragraph of the article:

(1) Necessarily, if p is known, p is true
(2) If p is known, p is necessarily true.
(1) is uncontentiously true; but if (2) is taken as equivalent to it then only necessary truths can be known. Such a position is suggested from time to time by passages in Plato and Aristotle. — Kenny

but with "believe" in the place of "know" You seem to think that what one believes is true, one believes is necessarily true. That's wrong.

Consider these two sentences:

• I believe the keys are in the car, but I might be wrong
• I am certain that the keys are in the car, but I might be wrong.

This is a distinction worth making, but which was not made in 's OP.

The first makes sense. The second is a contradiction.

Rubbish. It's common to treat things as true, even though we might be wrong. — Banno

You're conflating the possibility of being wrong with the acknowledgement of the possibility of being wrong; that's the ambiguity of your position right there.

Seen again here:

You seem to think that what one believe is true, one believes is necessarily true. That's wrong. — Banno

What one believes is not necessarily true, of course, but one believes that it is necessarily true, which means that one cannot acknowledge that it might be false without ceasing to believe it. Take as an example, say someone believes there are living beings on Mars; not merely that there are likely to be, but that there are; then one cannot acknowledge that there might not be, although of course one could acknowledge that there might not have been, but that is not the same.

What one believes is not necessarily true, of course, but one believes that it is necessarily true, — Janus

No. I believe that the keys are in the car. I do not believe that it is necessarily true that the keys are in the car.

The confusion is yours.

If you are intellectually honest you don't believe the keys are in the car, but you think they are most likely to be there. My terminology is less ambiguous, less confusing, than yours.

It's common to treat things as true, even though we might be wrong. I believe the keys are in the tray, even though I might be wrong. — Banno

The keys could be in many places that you could think of, all of which would be reasonable places for them to be. You can't feel sure that they are in every reasonable place.

If you are intellectually honest you don't believe the keys are in the car, but you think they are most likely to be there. My terminology is less ambiguous, less confusing, than yours. — Janus

If you were a competent user of English you might believe the keys to be in the car while not being certain of it. Your terminology leads to the confusion in the OP.

You are failing to make a distinction that is useful, and trapping yourself as a result.

The keys could be in many places that you could think of, all of which would be reasonable places for them to be. You can't feel sure that they are in every reasonable place. — praxis

They could be in any of a variety of places, but they are believed to be in the car.

So what. You line of thought remains obscure.

... you don't believe the keys are in the car, but you think they are most likely to be there. — Janus

They could be in any of a variety of places, but they are believed to be in the car. — Banno

Both work fine.

Simply that things, like the location of keys, can be accepted and entertained without feeling sure about them. We can also feel certain about the location of keys. Further, we can have irrational beliefs about the location of keys.

If you were a competent user of English you might believe the keys to be in the car while not being certain of it. Your terminology leads to the confusion in the OP. — Banno

On the back foot, with no argument, yet still asserting? I've shown the ambiguity in your terminology; can you show the purported confusion in mine; can you spell it out clearly? Your terminology may be closer to common usage, but in my view that says nothing to recommend it, since we all know there are many ambiguities in common usage.

Simply that things, like the location of keys, can be accepted and entertained without feeling sure about them. We can also feel certain about the location of keys. Further, we can have irrational beliefs about the location of keys. — praxis

Exactly. Of course one may believe they are in the car, and one may be wrong; but unless one feels certain they are in the car (which in most cases would be unwise) then it is confusing to talk in terms of believing they are there, as opposed to merely thinking it most likely.

unless feels certain they are in the car (which in most cases would be unwise) then it is confusing to talk in terms of believing they are there, as opposed to merely thinking it most likely. — Janus

Are there degrees of certainty? Cuz it seems that would solve the problem. Colloquially: mostly sure, 90-99% sure, 100% sure....

Or is certainty always 100%?

Simply that things, like the location of keys, can be accepted and entertained without feeling sure about them. — praxis

I don't disagree. Indeed, the grammar proposed here makes it clear that one can believe without being certain.

We can also feel certain about the location of keys. Further, we can have irrational beliefs about the location of keys. — praxis

Yep.

Are there degrees of certainty? Cuz it seems that would solve the problem. Colloquially: mostly sure, 90-99% sure, 100% sure....

Or is certainty always 100%? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'd say there is certainty and then there are degrees of uncertainty; which just means that you are not certain, but that whatever it is that is at issue seems to be more or less likely.

? I've shown the ambiguity in your terminology — Janus

Well, no; quite the reverse.

Here it is again: There is a common distinction made between being certain of something and believing it. Your account denies this distinction.

You are not very good at this stuff.

Simply that things, like the location of keys, can be accepted and entertained without feeling sure about them.
— praxis

I don't disagree. Indeed, the grammar proposed here makes it clear that one can believe without being certain. — Banno

I still don't understand how that can be the case, and for some reason when I ask about this you do not answer.

I can't believe (feel sure) that my keys are in various places at the same time. Rather, I can entertain the thoughts of them being in various places.

Are there degrees of certainty? Cuz it seems that would solve the problem. Colloquially: mostly sure, 90-99% sure, 100% sure.... — ZzzoneiroCosm

There are degrees of belief - from impossible through possible to certain.

One might colloquial call these degrees of certainty.

I can't believe (feel sure) that my keys are in various places at the same time. — praxis

I don't see why one would suppose such a thing. It seems there is a step in your reasoning that I have missed. Something like, that instead of "If the keys are not in the car then they must be somewhere else" you suppose "If the keys are not in the car then they must be everywhere else".

"If the keys are not in the car then they must be everywhere somewhere else". — Banno

Fixed.

They could be in various places. I can entertain thoughts of where they might be. I can't feel sure or certain about every place that I imagine, can I?

Here it is again: There is a common distinction made between being certain of something and believing it. Your account denies this distinction.

You are not very good at this stuff. — Banno

You are not very good at reading or at presenting arguments without resorting to trying to belittle your opponents. I have already made it clear that I draw a distinction between feeling certain and being certain. We can only be certain of what we know, but we can feel certain of what we believe, even though there can be no certainty that it is correct. To be certain of what we know means that there can be no doubt, not merely that I have no doubt. So there can never be no possibility of doubt about anything believed, even though there may be no possibility of your doubting it. (And if you do have doubts about something then to that extent you don't believe it).

Sure. Is that a problem?

You are not very good at reading or at presenting arguments without resorting to trying to belittle your opponents. I have already made it clear that I draw a distinction between feeling certain and being certain. We can only be certain of what we know, but we can feel certain of what we believe, even though there can be no certainty that it is correct. To be certain of what we know means that there can be no doubt, not merely that I have no doubt. So there can never be no possibility of doubt about anything believed, even though there may be no possibility of your doubting it. (And if you do have doubts about something then to that extent you don't believe it). — Janus

That's appalling.

You're not being clear. Also, I revised the post a couple of times.

I revised the post a couple of times. — praxis

Unfair. :wink: So where are we up to? What would you have me re-read?

@Janus

Here:

• I believe the keys are in the car, but I might be wrong
• I am certain that the keys are in the car, but I might be wrong.

Do we agree that there is a problem with the second sentence, but not with the first?

You are not very good at reading or at presenting arguments without resorting to trying to belittle your opponents. — Janus

Completely agree with Janus here.

I'm not surprised.

@ZzzoneiroCosm

This:
I believe the keys are in the car, but I might be wrong
I am certain that the keys are in the car, but I might be wrong.

Do you agree that there is a problem with the second sentence, but not with the first? Am I wrong here, and if so, how?

Do you think there is a distinction to be made between believing and being certain?

I'm not surprised. — Banno

You shouldn't be surprised as it's a fact-based assessment. Like when you started a thread called The Idiot's Argument and called all comers who didn't agree with you an idiot. The past isn't finished with you.





I forget who said it: You might be finished with the past but the past isn't finished with you.


Edit: turns out it's from the movie Magnolia where they try to claim it's from the Bible.


"And the book says, 'We may be through with the past, but the past isn't through with us.'"

@Banno

Having lost my keys, I can imagine them being in three different locations without feeling sure about them actually being in any of the different locations that I imagine. I could not believe (feel sure) that they were in all three of the places that I imagine.

I say this to point out that considering different locations is entertaining the possibilities and not believing them.

If I were to look for the keys and found something that gave me a clue to their location, like a note to myself that read "you're getting close", I might be more sure of the location that was nearest to me at that point. Even so, I don't think that I would feel sure at that point. I know myself and I can be pretty unreliable.

If out of nowhere I heard my car being driven away I would feel sure that the keys were in the car, even though I couldn't confirm it.

If at some later date I was reunited with my keys, holding them in my hand I would feel certain of their location.