4 ms·
I think you're reading that implication in, when it wasn't there. Nobody can know with certainty what's really true or false, and the author isn't claiming to k
by jbay808 6y ago
I think you're reading that implication in, when it wasn't there. Nobody can know with certainty what's really true or false, and the author isn't claiming to know either or judge people for disagreeing. We can only work on improving our processes for deciding what's true, and noticing that sometimes we can end up in a situation where our beliefs will become immune to contrary evidence is an important part of that. When that happens it doesn't mean those beliefs are certainly mistaken, but it does mean your fate is, more or less, sealed.
If your faith in a flat earth is strong enough that you'll come up with new theories of optics to justify continuing to believe in it even after you're launched into orbit to see it firsthand, your belief is unshakable. But that doesn't guarantee that you're wrong, maybe you're a genius who just revolutionized cosmology and optics. But you're probably wrong.
- tshaddox 6y ago> Nobody can know with certainty what's really true or false, and the author isn't claiming to know either or judge people for disagreeing. Yeah, that’s the kind of epistemological meat we really need to slice into. My view is that certainty is impossible but that knowledge is possible, and that we get ourselves into a lot of messes when we confuse knowledge with certainty. The quest for knowledge should not be a quest for certainty (either in the emotional sense or the Bayesian sense) or a quest for a perfect method of obtaining or justifying knowledge.