“”"“Philosophy should begin by explaining, not by disputing the fact of certainty”"""( very important phrase) . If we are certain of nothing, it is absolutely impossible for us to advance a single step in any science, or to take any part whatever in the affairs of life. A thorough-going skeptic would be insane, and that too with insanity of the highest grade. To such a one, all communication with other men, all succession of external actions, all thoughts, and even acts of the will would be impossible. Let us, then, admit the fact, and not be so extravagant as to say that madness sits on the threshold of philosophy.
From some book I’m reading now,
@Ninjastar@moonbeam please pin it to the top cause many of us have this problem that if truth exists at all or not
Didn’t you hear? We hate truth here. Normally I’d ban you for telling the truth, but I’m very happy right now because I just banned 10 of our regulars for absolutely no reason and completely undermined three modern democratic governments, so I’ll let you off with a warning.
Also, @Rhubot , can you help me redirect this discussion to structural engineering and tax code, please?
Making same topic over and over was because of technical problems of my browser and WiFi, then I told please so you can dismiss it, then we members of forums are constructing it, violation of rules is what you should deal with and not talking like an autocratic, “BE POLITE”
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m the lazy mod.
Anyway, you need to pay a pin fee for me to pin your topic to the top. It is 1 of every UN country’s five lowest valued coins. You can mail them to the White House. I have contacts there. If you want, I can pin your thread to the bottom? That’s free.
It’s not certainty but reliability of information ma man, as humans we can only assume certainty, to some extent, about exact science which is a part of some topics in maths. In the bottom line certainty is a product of our imagination. That’s true especially when talking about exact maths haha.
Anyway without reliable knowledge we can’t improve our understanding of reality and advance our technology. in a nutshell, Achieving reliable knowledge is what science is all about.
Since I don’t know what it’s about I don’t have a meaningful reply for that :<
From what I know about randomness.
The universe is probably deterministic, but we as humans can’t predict it accurately, so for us it has a random component even in our most accurate calculations.
Well I don’t think we have certainty to the hows and whys of existance, but we can have practical understanding to describe or measure things as they seem to us.
All I know for certain is I know nothing for certain. If we were certain of anything, then why invite debate about it as Ali has done? Unless we’re seeking to get to the bottom of things, at which point we’d probably be dead.
Further: mathematics is one way to analyze truth. But I hold that verbal language is another way, tho it’s slower – or is it faster? Case in point, biology may be approached from an arts & letters method. I took bio from a guy who’d gotten a biology BA rather than BS, then proceeded from there. It can be done.
