Talk:Certainty

2006 comments

Why is there no discussion for certainty? Can one not discuss certainty?

"The conclusion of Q however, assumes "P or Q" and "not P" are true. This is not certainty. Philosophers have struggled throughout history for premises such as these with certainty."

This is not true. It may be true that one cannot derive certainty from uncertainty, but in logic, u don't assum the premises are true; you question them. For the conclusion to be sound, the premises must be true. If "P or Q" and "not P" are certain, then the conclusion will be certain

--Tsinoyboi 16:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

hi Tsinoyboi, i agree, If "P or Q" and "not P" are certain, then the conclusion will be certain. This is the point outlining the problem with certainty in logic. if it could be more clear, feel fre e to edit it Spencerk 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Is "p or not p" not certain?

Verification needed?

I'm not clearly seeing why this gets a whole page. here's my feed back on individual sentences in the main paragraph:

• Certainty is the absence of all doubt.

Certainty is defined as state of being certain[1], and Certain is defined as free of doubt[2]; so Certainty isn't the absence of all doubt but the state of being absent of doubt. i'm not finding definitions of certainty or certainty describing all doubt.

• Something is certain only if skepticism could not exist.

skepticisim as in doubt or philosophical skepticism as in lack of knowledge? i don't understand how skepticism could not exsist. an individual not having doubt? does this mean if skepticism exsists, then something cannot be certain?

• Philosophy (atleast historically) struggles toward certainty.

All i can say is is there a verifiable source to this? also the wording isn't clear to me.. "struggles"?

• Meditations on First Philosophy is a famous pursuit of certainty by Descartes.

i guess i got nothing on this one..

• Epistemology is the study of knowledge, certainty and truth.

this one either

• Contemporary views of knowledge do not demand certainty, a common alternative is "justified true belief".

JTB is alternative to certainty?

Overall, i'm hoping someone could explain why.. ya.. just why.. perhaps more information and sources would make this more clear

--Tsinoyboi 04:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)(late sign, my bad)

• response
• does this mean if skepticism exsists, then something cannot be certain? -yes
• as for adjective/noun distinction, feel free to clarify this, i feel it will make it messier
• I added {{Fact}} to history line

thanks for your comments, please sign your comments with 4~ 's Spencerk 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainty means different things to different people. It is a matter of interpretation. The english language may define certainty, but it this definition certain(to them yes, but to others,no)?? In this article certain is said to onl exist if there is no skepticism, however if the probability of something is certain, then no matter how someone may like to define their ideas on ceratinty; and believe and skepticise this event from not occuring this doesnt mean that event is uncertain. That event may be certain and no skeptics can prevent it from happening.

Can someone please explain this sentence, it makes no sense to me. I thus would think it makes no sense to many other people. Could it be re-worded for clarity? (Feel free to insult me too): the ability to withhold assent from doctrines regarding the truth of things in their own nature.

I think "assent to" would be better than "assent from" if you are trying to say it doesnt subscribe to doctrines?

Circular

Is it just me or is

Certainty is the absence of all doubt. (Certainty)

and

Doubt is uncertainty (Doubt)

a bit circular? So certainty is the absence of uncertainty, right? --CompuChip 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Comp, here's more from the entry, "The truth is, certainty is an emotional state that is attained by many people every day." <-- But if that is truly a statement of truth as the author asserts, then aren't they certain?

Certainty is the absence of all doubt, but you must first go through all the work of ruling out all possible doubt yourself. Certainty is not subjective or relative to the individual. Certainty is a claim of actual transcendance, from the individual --> to the rest of humanity. Truth statements do that, which is why they threaten pure individualism.

Descartes' Discorse on Method demonstrates the method of ruling out doubt very well, yet postmodernism abandoned this for no good reason.

David Hume attempted to undercut the law of causation supporting certainty-chains and failed, though the popular belief is that he succeeded (in some vague manner that anyone has yet to rationally demonstrate).

Thus, certainty (certaintism?) is continually plagued by those indoctrinated into 20th-Century inductive-reasoning. For example, I can bet you that I can make a certainty statement during any given debate, and my audience will consistently allow my opponent to assert "not necessarily" statements, or "perhaps/probably statements" as valid counterarguments. . .when they are only begging the question.

So doubt can sometimes invalidate itself based on pure subjectivity. Certainty cannot. If doubt is demonstrable, then it becomes a certain counterargument. Thus, no doubt and a new certainty emerges. Obiwanjacoby (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy and certainty

The statement that philosophy seeks certainty is ridiculous. Anything that can be concretely proved or disproved would inherently be outside the domain of philosophy.--209.89.155.96 (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Except whether it is possible to concretely prove or disprove anything at all is a philosophical problem. Philosophers might, for example, seek to prove that a physical reality certainly exists. 99.244.97.75 (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Justifying the statement "anything that can be concretely proved or disproved would inherently be outside the domain of philosophy" is called philosophizing. 96.255.36.154 (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 209.89.155.96 to say that all philosophy should not be said to seek certainty. I disagree that anything which does seek certainty must be labeled something else, like math, though it could be useful to also specify those names. 99.244.97.75 gives an example of this. 96.255.36.154 gives an amusing, relevant example. I prefer a broad definition for the word "philosophy". --— sloth_monkey 08:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

'Emotion'

'Strictly speaking, certainty is not a property of statements, but a property of people' Really? This seems to be an issue of semantics; both seem like legitimate uses. A certain statement is absolutely true; a certain person believes that a statement is true. Even if absolute certainty is not possible, it is still a property - just one that's 'false' for every statement. 99.244.97.75 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also have a problem with this section. Why not simply redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof This entire section is useless. removing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.14.91 (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Even Infinity is explained as not being purely mathematical. Take calculus's Delta symbol, where they talk of "macroscopic change" somewhat to do with predicting outcomes,extrapolating,finding a rate-of-change etc. So, the "Certainty" table at right of the article is a useful thing to explore the concept. There are expressions such as "What are the odds? ...London to a brick", meaning millions-to-one certainty as an opinion of a race outcome. See ppm and percentage used in various fields. Stock index certainty may be worth considering, not just on daily rise/fall or yearly statistical analysis but all the other intangibles. At casinos sometimes they have the symbol of a "dragon" with ball(does it denote fortune?) along with delta symbol, 'chance viv-a-vis certainty'? SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

'Socrates'

I think that Pyrrho contributes the same (even more) here as Socrates, because his doubt is consistent and based logically, and he was earlier. They both doubted their knowledge but Pyrroh did it better. So I think he should be here instead Socrates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.167.78 (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Pyrrho is credited as being the first Skeptic philosopher." ... lol you really think this? my advice is don't make statements like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.98.66 (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with quote in article

If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.

— Ludwig Wittgenstein #115 from On Certainty

I just wanted to voice my opinion for what it's worth. I find myself in disagreement with the above quote, as it seems to me a statement which attempts to erase the concept of uncertainty ("doubt"). It seems like Wittgenstein is viewing uncertainty itself as though it were a concept of certainty. This personally strikes me as absurd. Certainty is to Uncertainty as Order is to Chaos.

I wonder if he may be speaking from a perspective overly used to a hardened state of thinking and argumentation where in his experiences of changing his position it has required countering thoughts of reason to compel away his previous belief(s) through conflict. That is not the only way to challenge and destroy beliefs. Uncertainty itself has the power to potentially wash away any belief into the unknown.

I can imagine an argument to claim that from a perspective of absolute omniscience there is only certain order, but from our perspectives as humans who acknowledge limitation and humility, we understand concepts of uncertainty/chaos to be something other than knowable certainty/order.

If Wittgenstein means to say that to question certainty requires an identity which itself would have to include some type of certain order to hold form... I feel I may disagree with that assumption. Chaos/Uncertainty can, in my view, exist independently of Order/Certainty as a force on its own. As its own source of motion to create or destroy ideas and things through instability; to question ideas of truth and wash away order.

A normal human identity includes order and some form of personal certainty/truth. But he/she can also acknowledge uncertainty & chaos to exist outside the realm of what he/she understands or identifies to be within his/her self.

I call for the acknowledgment of uncertainty, and if a position is to be represented counter to that, as may be the case with Ludwig Wittgenstein, I think it should be presented within the context of clarifying that it may be counter to what I presume is a popularly held opinion that uncertainty exists. --— sloth_monkey 08:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

try this

Certainty is abstraction, an abstract term created perhaps from the verb certify, in any case related to some verb form as most abstract nouns are. To certify is a synonym of testify, evidence, prove all that implying a procedure of checking reality or allegations. It may well be that the end result of such a procedure takes you to a mental state of satisfaction with the reality or existence of what you have been trying to verify to a degree of certainty. This implies that no abstract term such as certainty makes sense on its own, but by tracing it back to the production of the term through some verbal exercise or relation if you like. And relation, another abstract term comes from relating your internal (subjective) experience to the external objective world to see if they match, or can get connected as S-R.

Another approach is to start off from certain, an adjective, another abstraction given to an object as a result of some past experience, along with its synonyms, such as sure, granted, etc. The adjective implies that experience proves the existence of such a quality as certainty (of certain, another form of a property).

In everyday life certainty indicates the need for evidence which is usually a trace left behind by an event, force, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.10.126.198 (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Certainty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623052519/http://www.bartleby.com:80/61/41/C0214100.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/41/C0214100.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Quote section

What's the reasoning behind having a quotes section? Isn't that what Wikiquotes is for? - 37.164.128.35 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I removed the section per WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE. I moved the Wittgenstein quote up to the appropriate section, with no prejudice against paraphrasing or removing it. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"the mental state of being without doubt"

Isn't doubt more like a subjective sense of uncertainty about a piece of knowledge, regardless of whether he/she actually has that? We can always be uncertain of some things and then remember "oh yeah! this was the case". That makes me inclined to remove this part from the beginning sentence. 37KZ (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a personal opinion, which is not a legitimate reason for including or excluding statements, see WP:FORUM#MYOPINION. But the lead does have issues with MOS:LEAD (does not summarize the article) and WP:V (no source provided). I rewrote it accordingly. Paradoctor (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)