4 ms·

> 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 mat

> 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.
    - DavidPiper 2y ago
      Hmm I agree with some points and disagree with others. Let's start with maths again, where we seem to be in agreement: Assuming (as we both seem to be for now) that mathematics is pure expression of logic and reason: if you can prove something mathematically, you "know it", and if you can't prove it mathematically, you "don't know it". With apologies to real philosophers, let's call known mathematical facts "truth". It is possible for things to be real without us being able to express their truth accurately. This is what science does: it/we make observations and adjust our understanding based on experiments that make use of those observations. These experiments can be complex - like firing electrons through sheets of metal to determine their physical structure - or they can me simple - like attempting and (for now) failing to walk through a wall. Based on the results of those experiments, we make technological progress, and potentially in the future, we will discover some technology, or a "more correct" fact about humans, or walls, that will enable us to develop a technology that allows us to walk through them. However, in our current moment, we can scientifically demonstrate that it is better to leave the house by the front door than to attempt to walk through the wall. Again with apologies to real philosophers, let's call these kind of empirical facts "knowledge". With these definitions, knowledge and truth are not the same thing. We could look at truth as "perennial knowledge" or perhaps knowledge as "temporary truth until proven otherwise". Knowledge is falsifiable. Truth is not. Mathematics itself has a whole branch of study dedicated to measuring how likely knowledge is to be true: probability. As our scientific knowledge, and technology improves, we're able to better see, measure and interpret the world, and the probability that our knowledge is truth gets higher. There are of course local maxima, and there are also step-changes with technological innovations and so on. My argument is that we can "know" both "truth" and "knowledge", but knowledge is subject to change over time with appropriate evidence. Importantly, you can draw logical/mathematical conclusions from knowledge and call that truth. E.g: that people cannot walk through walls is knowledge, and therefore that leaving the house via the front door is a BETTER option than through the wall is a logical truth. ---- Breather time ---- Now we come to the third part of the spectrum: > If you believe in the scientific method Belief/religion/dogma/etc. These rotate the direction of reasoning and say: "We KNOW the reason, and evidence to the contrary is not able to change this belief". (See also: "motivated reasoning"). In effect, "belief" is a way of creating "truth" just like mathematics. And it suffers the same "problem" that "once proven, it cannot be unproven". The distinguishing difference between belief-as-truth and mathematics-as-proof is that people can't walk through walls. So my question for you is: Is the best way to leave your house by walking through the wall? - If you answer "Yes", you are exercising belief - If you answer "No", you are exercising science - If you answer "I don't know", then your day-to-day actions will decide for you. (Unless, like me, you never leave the house and the point is moot.)
- geye1234 2y ago
  I mean, it's hard to know where to start. The sibling poster gave a practical example about leaving your house. Another might be: "what happens when I burn hydrogen in oxygen? Will it produce water, ammonia or a chocolate bunny?". Chemistry rather than simple quantity is our object here, so you can't know with the certainty of math. You can't know with absolute certainty that hydrogen won't suddenly change its properties today and give you ammonia or chocolate. Would you therefore answer "I don't know"? Another problem is that your position appears to be self-refuting. Your proposition is that "Everything I know, I know with the certainty of math, or not at all". Which of the two does this statement itself fall into? If it's with the certainty of math, why do you make an exception for this non-mathematical proposition, and how do you justify it, and how do you deal with the ensuing infinite vicious regress? If not at all, obviously it means nothing. You also need to know with certainty that "something exists". This is true even if the objects of your thought are mere mental images, because even then, mental images exist. Quite a few other problems but these initially spring to mind.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > "what happens when I burn hydrogen in oxygen? Will it produce water, ammonia or a chocolate bunny?" I don't know. Does it matter? Even if I plainly see it produce a chocolate bunny, for what reason would I need to make up my mind on that? I fail to see the utility. "I don't know" remains a sufficient state going forward. > Which of the two does this statement itself fall into? I don't know. > If it's with the certainty of math, why do you make an exception for this non-mathematical proposition, and how do you justify it I don't know. And I don't have a justification. For what reason would I need one? > and how do you deal with the ensuing infinite vicious regress? Infinite regress implies making up a mind, no? But since there is no real need to do that...
    - geye1234 2y ago
      > Does it matter? Even if I plainly see it produce a chocolate bunny, for what reason would I need to make up my mind on that? I fail to see the utility. "I don't know" remains a sufficient state going forward. That's a different question. I'm not asking whether you have a reason to make up your mind on the question, just whether it's rational to think one or the other. Couple more questions: Is math an area where you can make up your mind? Do you know whether you know the answer to the question I posed above? Which was: >> "Everything I know, I know with the certainty of math, or not at all". Which of the two does this statement itself fall into?

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.
  - DavidPiper 2y ago
    Hmm I agree with some points and disagree with others. Let's start with maths again, where we seem to be in agreement: Assuming (as we both seem to be for now) that mathematics is pure expression of logic and reason: if you can prove something mathematically, you "know it", and if you can't prove it mathematically, you "don't know it". With apologies to real philosophers, let's call known mathematical facts "truth". It is possible for things to be real without us being able to express their truth accurately. This is what science does: it/we make observations and adjust our understanding based on experiments that make use of those observations. These experiments can be complex - like firing electrons through sheets of metal to determine their physical structure - or they can me simple - like attempting and (for now) failing to walk through a wall. Based on the results of those experiments, we make technological progress, and potentially in the future, we will discover some technology, or a "more correct" fact about humans, or walls, that will enable us to develop a technology that allows us to walk through them. However, in our current moment, we can scientifically demonstrate that it is better to leave the house by the front door than to attempt to walk through the wall. Again with apologies to real philosophers, let's call these kind of empirical facts "knowledge". With these definitions, knowledge and truth are not the same thing. We could look at truth as "perennial knowledge" or perhaps knowledge as "temporary truth until proven otherwise". Knowledge is falsifiable. Truth is not. Mathematics itself has a whole branch of study dedicated to measuring how likely knowledge is to be true: probability. As our scientific knowledge, and technology improves, we're able to better see, measure and interpret the world, and the probability that our knowledge is truth gets higher. There are of course local maxima, and there are also step-changes with technological innovations and so on. My argument is that we can "know" both "truth" and "knowledge", but knowledge is subject to change over time with appropriate evidence. Importantly, you can draw logical/mathematical conclusions from knowledge and call that truth. E.g: that people cannot walk through walls is knowledge, and therefore that leaving the house via the front door is a BETTER option than through the wall is a logical truth. ---- Breather time ---- Now we come to the third part of the spectrum: > If you believe in the scientific method Belief/religion/dogma/etc. These rotate the direction of reasoning and say: "We KNOW the reason, and evidence to the contrary is not able to change this belief". (See also: "motivated reasoning"). In effect, "belief" is a way of creating "truth" just like mathematics. And it suffers the same "problem" that "once proven, it cannot be unproven". The distinguishing difference between belief-as-truth and mathematics-as-proof is that people can't walk through walls. So my question for you is: Is the best way to leave your house by walking through the wall? - If you answer "Yes", you are exercising belief - If you answer "No", you are exercising science - If you answer "I don't know", then your day-to-day actions will decide for you. (Unless, like me, you never leave the house and the point is moot.)
geye1234 2y ago
I mean, it's hard to know where to start. The sibling poster gave a practical example about leaving your house. Another might be: "what happens when I burn hydrogen in oxygen? Will it produce water, ammonia or a chocolate bunny?". Chemistry rather than simple quantity is our object here, so you can't know with the certainty of math. You can't know with absolute certainty that hydrogen won't suddenly change its properties today and give you ammonia or chocolate. Would you therefore answer "I don't know"? Another problem is that your position appears to be self-refuting. Your proposition is that "Everything I know, I know with the certainty of math, or not at all". Which of the two does this statement itself fall into? If it's with the certainty of math, why do you make an exception for this non-mathematical proposition, and how do you justify it, and how do you deal with the ensuing infinite vicious regress? If not at all, obviously it means nothing. You also need to know with certainty that "something exists". This is true even if the objects of your thought are mere mental images, because even then, mental images exist. Quite a few other problems but these initially spring to mind.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > "what happens when I burn hydrogen in oxygen? Will it produce water, ammonia or a chocolate bunny?" I don't know. Does it matter? Even if I plainly see it produce a chocolate bunny, for what reason would I need to make up my mind on that? I fail to see the utility. "I don't know" remains a sufficient state going forward. > Which of the two does this statement itself fall into? I don't know. > If it's with the certainty of math, why do you make an exception for this non-mathematical proposition, and how do you justify it I don't know. And I don't have a justification. For what reason would I need one? > and how do you deal with the ensuing infinite vicious regress? Infinite regress implies making up a mind, no? But since there is no real need to do that...
  - geye1234 2y ago
    > Does it matter? Even if I plainly see it produce a chocolate bunny, for what reason would I need to make up my mind on that? I fail to see the utility. "I don't know" remains a sufficient state going forward. That's a different question. I'm not asking whether you have a reason to make up your mind on the question, just whether it's rational to think one or the other. Couple more questions: Is math an area where you can make up your mind? Do you know whether you know the answer to the question I posed above? Which was: >> "Everything I know, I know with the certainty of math, or not at all". Which of the two does this statement itself fall into?