Talk:Certainty

Philosophy Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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?[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]