Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Can one be honestly, genuinely certain but wrong?

Rate this topic


DavidV

Recommended Posts

You are correct, theDude, and might I add that your observation is the most accurate and most succinct statement of the issue that I have ever seen. If others still have questions, however, I would certainly be willing to go into more detail about the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing the #AynRand crew a little better, I'd say that it's important to understand the context that surrounds that question. The quiz from which it is drawn is the equivalent of a purity test. It's owners believe that you can't be wrong if you are "honestly, genuinely certain" because wrongness is a surefire indicator that you're not "honestly, genuinely certain." It's a handy tautology that underlies the channel owner's belief in his own infallibility.

This, at least, was his understanding back when I last had a run-in with him back in 1998. Knowing his personality, I am confident that he still believes exactly that.

If the original post was honestly curious about the strict interpretation of the question (rather than the odd context behind it), then I think theDude is correct if he recognizes that certainty is contextual (which he seems to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

How can I be certain that a proposition is true even though I cannot know every possible factor that can affect its truth-value?

I have heard that Objectivism answers this with the contextual theory of certainty, but could you guys tell me more about it and/or where I can find out more about it?

I am having trouble with the idea that one can be certain but wrong at the same time, because this seems to give the dangerous implication that nearly everything that I know is true may be false. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is important to keep in mind the distinction that "certainty" is an epistemological, not a metaphysical, concept. To say that what we believe--no matter how objective our thought-processes in reaching that belief have been--can absolutely gaurantee that reality matches our beliefs, not only would require omniscience to achieve certainty (as mentioned in the other thread), but also seems to have some primacy of consciousness premises underlying it.

Remember that epistemology is a normative science, telling us how to gain knowledge. Similarly, ethics is a normative science telling us how to further our lives. And yet, it is possible to be morally perfect and still die prematurely--usually due to freak circumstances outside of one's own control, e.g. a drunk driver runs you over. Similarly, it is possible to be completely objective in one's thinking, and yet be wrong--again, if there are bizarre circumstances outside of one's conscious awareness, e.g. you see George W. Bush on television and (correctly) reach the certain conclusion that you are watching the President of the United States giving an address; but unbeknownst to you, the person you are seeing is not actually President Bush, but a cleverly disguised imposter. There is no way for you to have access to all the relevant information in such a case, and you can't be held to epistemological standards demanding such knowledge (just as we wouldn't morally condemn someone who made an honest mistake due to lack of knowledge).

In circumstances where our judgment is based on all the relevant information to the best of our knowledge, formed by a fully objective thought-process, we may properly say we are certain. And unless there are strange circumstances that we can't know about, as in the above example, that will generally guarantee that our judgment corresponds to the facts of reality.

If we take "knowledge" to be a concept bridging epistemology and metaphysics, then we can view "certainty" as a necessary but not a sufficient condition for knowledge. "Knowledge" would have to be something like, a certain belief (i.e., one that is formed according to fully objective thought-processes) that is true. This definition includes both the epistemological and metaphysical component of knowledge--"A certain belief" (epistemological) "that is true" (metaphysical). (The above is not meant as a formal definition of "knowledge," since a good technical epistemologically correct definition couldn't include the concept of "belief," which is derivative from the concept "knowledge"--but I think it is helpful in the context of this discussion.) But remember that "certainty" is a fully epistemological concept, referring to an evaluation of some thought-processes and not directly to facts of reality.

There's probably more I could and should say on this, but that should serve as a good basis for discussion. If you have any questions regarding what I just wrote, post them and we'll go from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ghost Of David Hume
As infants, we are not preprogrammed to realize independent existence. At this stage, we only know sensation. Over time, and after many repeated experiments (with readily available subject matter) we come to rely on independent existence as a result of overwhelming coincidence. My thought is that we cant ultimately prove such, but the trick is that we can be 99.9999% certain that these things are real, and also that it is probably (99.999%) beneficial for us to do so."
In circumstances where our judgment is based on all the relevant information to the best of our knowledge, formed by a fully objective thought-process, we may properly say we are certain. And unless there are strange circumstances that we can't know about, as in the above example, that will generally guarantee that our judgment corresponds to the facts of reality.

All reasonings concerning matter of fact seem to be

founded on the relation of Cause and Effect. By means of

that relation alone we can go beyond the evidence of our

memory and senses. If you were to ask a man, why he

believes any matter of fact, which is absent; for instance,

that his friend is in the country, or in France; he would

give you a reason; and this reason would be some other

fact; as a letter received from him, or the knowledge of his

former resolutions and promises. A man finding a watch

or any other machine in a desert island, would conclude

that there had once been men in that island. All our rea-

sonings concerning fact are of the same nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can be certain of the truth-value of a proposition if and only if I have formed a judgment of it after thoroughly evaluating all the relevant facts I know. However, I may be mistaken in my judgment if there are relevant but uknown facts.

My questions now are,

1. How do I know whether there are relevant but unknown facts?

2. Can I still be certain and act accordingly when I know that there are relevant but unknown facts?

For instance, I know that there are no relevant but unknown facts that may changed my certainty of the truth-value of the proposition that 1 + 0 = 1. However, this is not case for very complex propositions, such as criminal cases in which a jury must ascertain the truth-value of the proposition that the accused committed the crime.

[above post edited]

last sentence of original post: What should I do when I know I have enough yet there may be more than can prove me wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom - with your last sentence, you are taking an arbitrary assertion and using it to make judgements of knowledge.

What is one supposed to do with arbitrary asssertions - and why? Answer that, and you will have the answer to your question.

As to the 'rephrased' question, it is much too broad to be answered rationally. As you yourself indicate, the standard is going to be different in different instances because of differing contexts. In the mathematical example, the proposition is easily validated. In the criminal case, there are a greater number of facts which must be accounted for - and as such, the standard is going to be that much greater. All you have to do is watch any crime show to see examples of that.

--

Meade - please post using your nic - or do not post. Also, a post made up entirely of quotes is inappropriate.

As to the content of those quotes, I would state they qualify as arbitrary asssertions. Perhaps you would like to actually state the support for those assertions - if you have any.

I would further state they are poorly worded. There is no sentence you have written which can be rationally addressed, because each one could mean a couple different things at least. As such, besides providing support for the statements, I suggest providing clarification for them as well - especially (or most importantly) for those sentences in your first quote.

Edited by RadCap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - you do not get the logical error.

Man is capable of running a four-minute mile. However, this does NOT mean each and every man is capable of running a four-minute mile. To claim in ANY particular instance that a particular man is able to run a four-minute mile, you must have evidence that he can do so - otherwise the claim is arbitrary.

The same is true of your question.

You claim man is capable of being wrong (either due to error or insufficient info). However, this does not mean in ANY particular instance that a particular man is wrong (that he is making an error or is missing info). To make such a claim, you MUST have evidence such an error has occured or that such info is missing - otherwise the claim is arbitrary.

Get it now? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not claiming that there will always be insufficient info. to form a judgment of which man can be certain.

I am asking how can man know whether he has sufficient info. to form a judgment of which he can be certain?

So your answer is that man must have evidence to suspect that there may be more relevant info. or that the current info. is insufficient; otherwise his suspicion is arbitrary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is NOT what I said - because that was NOT your claim.

You have asked TWO questions. I was addressing the second question with the example of the 4 minute mile. You said that more facts CAN exist which could reveal an error even AFTER certainty has been achieved. I responded by saying you cannot make such a claim about facts WITHOUT evidence that they exist.

This statement does not indicate WHAT qualifies as a standard of certainty - ie what facts one needs to be certain. As to THAT question, I answered it a few posts ago. I indicated that your question is much too broad, and as such is not one which is rationally valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:confused: first of all I apologize for my bad decorum. I know you gotta be tough on the newbs though. That last quote was from Hume, since I was Hume's ghost, and I was haunting AshRyan. Here is my clarification, RedCap.

1. How do I know whether there are "RbUoUF"?

2. Can I still be certain and act accordingly when I know that there are "RbUoUF"?

Usually people discover this by a negative process where they find their theory has internal inconsistencies, and they know they must be missing some of the picture. RbUoUF always implies that one's current knowledge is flawed, that something you see is not what it seems. Because the truth exists, your knowledge is compared as a subtraction from a hypothetical truth-world, where everything is known, and can be more or less consistent with it.

There is no way of knowing that RbUoUf don't exist in some cases, except perhaps if you possess divine knowledge. The implied meaning of my quotes above is that certainty itself is a function of probability. Probabilities can be expressed as ratios 1/x, so when they multiply each other, 1/(x*x) an event becomes less probable at an exponential rate (in a court case, if the suspect is to be tried by circumstantial evidence, mulitiple proven evidences are required). In reality, we are faced with a multitude of probabilities multiplying each other to argue that our senses are correct, say 99.999999999% of the time. So we approximate and say this is equal to 1, and you probably won't be proven wrong, and its irrational to assume the opposite when the probability is so overwhelming. (in the case that your senses are being fooled by an intelligent force, and in that case its not even your fault). If you choose the .0000000001%, then you are right approximately 0% percent of the time.

We can assume the full probability for things implicit in our very existence, such as 1 + 0 = 1, because probability is a measure of what may exist, and if you ask what the probability is of something currently existing to exist then it always comes to be 1. This method is insufficient to determine all truth since new conditions are always being created and the past cannot fully contain the future.

I think thats partly why science is so successful, because a good scientist assumes his theory is guilty until proven correct. If its not proven, its a hypothesis. Its called the critical method. The greater the degree to which you check yourself for error and scrupulously base your evidence on reality, the more rights you have to say that the probability of your truth is significantly deeper than in another theory. The theory is proven by multiple and self-reinforcing coincidences.

We are human beings, and not gods, so we don't have perfect and complete knowledge given to us. We discover it by painful effort. Our brains were designed by evolution mostly to make tools and manipulate static matter, so we have to overcome many arbitrary distortions. We thought the earth was flat, because the caveman has no evolutionary need to think otherwise. So, the best way for us to gain knowledge is to maintain a healthy balance between self-doubt (to prevent errors from multiplying) and certainty (to multiply the truths). If we automatically assumed everything was correct for the most part, than we might still be in the stone age. Its hard to imagine evolution without natural selection.

I agree with AshRyan that the definition of knowledge implies certainty. Its true that at one point in time I can say that a person has knowledge of a certain state, and then later it can be proven false. In retrospect, I was in error when I assumed the person had knowledge of that state. I define knowledge as an inner state which corresponds to reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that certainty is a function of probability (certainty as 99.999% probability) leads to an infinite regress and total skepticism, as Hume pointed out and advocated. The truth of the science of probability is a probability, and that probability is a probability, and so on, "till at last there remain nothing of the original probability, however great we may suppose it to have been, and however small the diminution by every new uncertainty." (Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature. Book 1, Part IV, Section 1)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  How do I know whether there are relevant but unknown facts?

The short answer is you can know with considerable effort, there may be or there may not be 'unknown facts' but from the persepective of your consciousness, the statement is arbitrary. It seems like you are looking for something I would call Omniscient Certainty. This question is similar to one I raise in the 'universe' thread. Which states that just because we cannot measure something accurately does not mean that it is unbounded or does not possess finite limits (e.g.- Uncertainty principle, universe, etc.). The problem is with the measurement techniques, not reality. In relation to your question, I believe a similar problem exist...

I think that new terms need to be defined in this area. I use the following...

There are:

Things that are unknown to all men yet exist for man to discover. This must be logically possible or new knowledge could not be discovered by man. To claim that this does not exist invalidates knowledge (or claims we know it all). This needs a word and a more desciptive definition. We could never determine how much of this exists, only that it does exist...

Things that are known to some/all men by a rational process. This would be knowledge.

When you speak of your question: How do I know whether there are relevant but unknown facts?

Without strict interpretation, I read it as, you meant:

How do I know if there is something unknown to me, yet known to others and with these others I have no reasonable way of getting in contact with them in a timely manner, to discover all the relevant information, before I make a decision? (Correct me if this is not your question)

My answer would be given enough time you could come to know all the facts, but would this be timely to the descision making process and would the effort spent be worth it. The claim is arbitrary and arbitrary claims are rejected because they form a feedback loop in the brain, which if given serious consideration would result in no action at all. You would just sit, contemplating all possible outcomes, trying to determine if you had all the information. No decision would ever be reached and more than likely the opportunity window to make that decision would pass while you are contemplating it. Arbitrary claims are rejected for thought efficiency...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implied meaning of my quotes above is that certainty itself is a function of probability...

That's false. Actually, the concept of "probability" is dependent on the concept of "certainty" in a proper epistemological hierarchy. It makes no sense to say 99.999999% of some unknown (and/or unknowable) x. A percentage can only be measured in relation to a known whole. Thus, the concept of "probability" is invalid as it is being used here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The short answer is you can know with considerable effort, there may be or there may not be 'unknown facts' but from the persepective of your consciousness, the statement is arbitrary.  It seems like you are looking for something I would call Omniscient Certainty...

...How do I know whether there are relevant but unknown facts?

Tom,

Context determines the standard for whether you should be looking for more relevant facts. (Here I mean the full context--the context of the situation together with the context of your present knowledge.) You implicitly acknowledged this with your example between a simple addition problem and a complex legal problem. In the first context, you know that all the relevant facts are already at your disposal. In the latter, you are aware that there may be more and put forth every effort to try and find them.

Also, note that the context similarly determines how important it is for you to look for more facts. In some situations, there may be more facts relevant to finding out the truth--but the truth in that instance may not be relevant to your goals and life. You personally don't need to know the answer to every complex problem out there. But the context of the situation, as it relates to your legitimate values, will determine when you should do more work in order to achieve objective certainty (or rather, when it is necessary for you to achieve certainty before acting).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps that sentence was poorly worded, AshRyan. I was meaning to say that certainty can be achieved by observing an overwhelming majority of events. So it isn't strictly a function of probability, but certainty can be a function of probability. Probability is observed hits/total observations. As in the infant, who reaches certainty by observing independent existence repeatedly, purely, and overwhelmingly. Scientific theories have this nature, their proof is that they accurately and consistently predict phenomenon to a certain degree.

After reviewing these posts, I gather that the only meaningful way this question can be interpreted is that it concerns practical applications of knowledge, namely how cautious we could be about our own certainty (ascertaining the context of the knowledge, rejecting arbitrary claims). Everyone here agrees that certain things cannot possibly be wrong in any universe, such as mathematical facts, existence exists, time flows, sense data, etc. Also, the question of whether our senses are globally being decieved, as in an experience machine, is meaningless to us, since it is rather useless to consider that possibility (except if you're in Hollywood).

I thought that the idea of probability would be helpful to consider, because it concerns situations where falsity may possibly exist and how these situations may be translated into certainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...certainty can be achieved by observing an overwhelming majority of events. So it isn't strictly a function of probability, but certainty can be a function of probability.  Probability is observed hits/total observations. As in the infant, who reaches certainty by observing independent existence repeatedly, purely, and overwhelmingly. Scientific theories have this nature, their proof is that they accurately and consistently predict phenomenon to a certain degree...

This sounds a little too close to a view of induction as being simply a matter of having observed a certain number of phenomenon. But that's wrong. If you observed 1000 white swans and came to the conclusion that all swans are white, it would only take one black swan to swim by to bring your generalization crashing down. In other words, sheer number is meaningless. Observation (as such) of a thousand instances of something is no more the basis for valid induction than observation (as such) of one instance. I definitely wouldn't put it that "certainty can be achieved by observing an overwhelming majority of events," because in our lifetimes, we generally can't observe an overwhelming majority of most categories of events.

This may not be quite what you meant again. But I am trying to get you to clarify and perhaps refine your position so that it doesn't seem to be connected with these false views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...