7 ms·

This is quite a close minded position that leaves you vulnerable in changing circumstances. Very little is known with absolute certainty outside of mathematics.

by padjo 2y ago

This is quite a close minded position that leaves you vulnerable in changing circumstances. Very little is known with absolute certainty outside of mathematics. I think a better default is to revisit topics every now and then, listen to the counter arguments and change your position if you think it is warranted.

9rx 2y ago
> Very little is known with absolute certainty outside of mathematics. Absolutely. As you've read in other comments, mathematics is of the few areas where I have found room to make up my mind. For everything else, straight up: I don't know. The only way to change my mind from "I don't know" is to make it "I do know", but, as you say, outside of mathematics that realistically isn't going to happen. We collectively don't know and it is unlikely that we will ever know. > This is quite a close minded position that leaves you vulnerable in changing circumstances. Okay, but what in the mathematics that I have made my mind up on do you believe is prone to change? Do you anticipate that we will eventually determine that 1+1 actually equals 4 or something? I will change my mind if in the unlikely event that incontrovertible proof does somehow come to be. I accepted it is theoretically possible to change minds. But, as I said, which is key to the whole thing, I will not spend my days arguing that 1+1=2 until I find out different. I am confident enough that 1+1=2 that I don't have to make that case to myself in front of others. Argument is a device for when you are unsure of something and want to learn more. There is no mind to change as you haven’t established a mind yet.
- geye1234 2y ago
  > For everything else, straight up: I don't know. Montaigne said something similar, and Descartes' response was to attempt to make everything as certain as math. It didn't end well :-) Surely there is some middle ground? (I haven't read all your comments so perhaps you say so somewhere.) Not all objects of knowledge yield the same certainty, or precision, as quantity. That is not a fault in them or us, it is just in their nature. But we can have a fairly good idea. Examples are too obvious to enumerate. If we dichotomize between "knowing with the certainty of math", and "not knowing", we end in some pretty weird places.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > Surely there is some middle ground? Is there? It seems quite binary from my vantage point. Of course, I'm not oblivious the fact that I'm arguing, so, that means I don't really have a clue. Perhaps the middle ground, if we are to call it that, is actually the division of "I don't know and I don't care" and "I don't know but wish to learn more"? Now, one could find a change in emotion there, transitioning between care and lack of care. While emotion is related to the mind, I'm not sure that is what a "made up mind" or "changed mind" refers to. As far as I can tell, as it is used, people consider refer to the mind in that context to be something rational or logical, not something of the arbitrary emotional whim. > If we dichotomize between "knowing with the certainty of math", and "not knowing", we end in some pretty weird places. How so? You've piqued by interest.
    - DavidPiper 2y ago
      Not OP, but it seems to me the middle ground is making observations of evidence and making conclusions based on that - the scientific method, if you will. > How so? You've piqued by interest. To paraphrase Tim Minchin: Is non-mathematical knowledge so loose of a weave that every morning we are struck by the decision of whether to leave our house via the front door or by the window on the second floor? Jumping out of an upstairs window to leave my house in the morning is a pretty weird place :) EDIT: I suppose you could make a mathematical argument for the front door, but I'd be inclined to see it as a scientific argument that might need to use mathematics as its language to quantify the reasoning.
      - 9rx 2y ago
        > it seems to me the middle ground is making observations of evidence and making conclusions based on that I still only see two states there. "I don't know", and should you be able to reach a conclusion, "I do know". I did suggest that there was a possible subdivision of "I don't know" into "I don't know and I don't care" and "I don't know but wish to learn more". You could argue that taking in observations only applies to the latter case, maybe? Or, perhaps the middle ground, if we are to call it that, is making up your mind on the scientific method? If you believe in the scientific method then you don't need to transition beyond "I don't know" for anything it observes. You can simply lay your trust in the scientific method and forget about the rest. > Jumping out of an upstairs window to leave my house in the morning is a pretty weird place It could be that walking through the wall is the best way to leave a house but I (and presumably you) just haven't figured out how to do it yet. I don't know.

by padjo 2y ago

9rx 2y ago

> Very little is known with absolute certainty outside of mathematics. Absolutely. As you've read in other comments, mathematics is of the few areas where I have found room to make up my mind. For everything else, straight up: I don't know. The only way to change my mind from "I don't know" is to make it "I do know", but, as you say, outside of mathematics that realistically isn't going to happen. We collectively don't know and it is unlikely that we will ever know. > This is quite a close minded position that leaves you vulnerable in changing circumstances. Okay, but what in the mathematics that I have made my mind up on do you believe is prone to change? Do you anticipate that we will eventually determine that 1+1 actually equals 4 or something? I will change my mind if in the unlikely event that incontrovertible proof does somehow come to be. I accepted it is theoretically possible to change minds. But, as I said, which is key to the whole thing, I will not spend my days arguing that 1+1=2 until I find out different. I am confident enough that 1+1=2 that I don't have to make that case to myself in front of others. Argument is a device for when you are unsure of something and want to learn more. There is no mind to change as you haven’t established a mind yet.

geye1234 2y ago
> For everything else, straight up: I don't know. Montaigne said something similar, and Descartes' response was to attempt to make everything as certain as math. It didn't end well :-) Surely there is some middle ground? (I haven't read all your comments so perhaps you say so somewhere.) Not all objects of knowledge yield the same certainty, or precision, as quantity. That is not a fault in them or us, it is just in their nature. But we can have a fairly good idea. Examples are too obvious to enumerate. If we dichotomize between "knowing with the certainty of math", and "not knowing", we end in some pretty weird places.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > Surely there is some middle ground? Is there? It seems quite binary from my vantage point. Of course, I'm not oblivious the fact that I'm arguing, so, that means I don't really have a clue. Perhaps the middle ground, if we are to call it that, is actually the division of "I don't know and I don't care" and "I don't know but wish to learn more"? Now, one could find a change in emotion there, transitioning between care and lack of care. While emotion is related to the mind, I'm not sure that is what a "made up mind" or "changed mind" refers to. As far as I can tell, as it is used, people consider refer to the mind in that context to be something rational or logical, not something of the arbitrary emotional whim. > If we dichotomize between "knowing with the certainty of math", and "not knowing", we end in some pretty weird places. How so? You've piqued by interest.
  - DavidPiper 2y ago
    Not OP, but it seems to me the middle ground is making observations of evidence and making conclusions based on that - the scientific method, if you will. > How so? You've piqued by interest. To paraphrase Tim Minchin: Is non-mathematical knowledge so loose of a weave that every morning we are struck by the decision of whether to leave our house via the front door or by the window on the second floor? Jumping out of an upstairs window to leave my house in the morning is a pretty weird place :) EDIT: I suppose you could make a mathematical argument for the front door, but I'd be inclined to see it as a scientific argument that might need to use mathematics as its language to quantify the reasoning.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      > it seems to me the middle ground is making observations of evidence and making conclusions based on that I still only see two states there. "I don't know", and should you be able to reach a conclusion, "I do know". I did suggest that there was a possible subdivision of "I don't know" into "I don't know and I don't care" and "I don't know but wish to learn more". You could argue that taking in observations only applies to the latter case, maybe? Or, perhaps the middle ground, if we are to call it that, is making up your mind on the scientific method? If you believe in the scientific method then you don't need to transition beyond "I don't know" for anything it observes. You can simply lay your trust in the scientific method and forget about the rest. > Jumping out of an upstairs window to leave my house in the morning is a pretty weird place It could be that walking through the wall is the best way to leave a house but I (and presumably you) just haven't figured out how to do it yet. I don't know.