humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Apr 11, 12:03 am, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article ,
> m...@myinboxisbroken.com says...

> > In the absence of agreement about what "certain" means, this is ambiguous.
>
> I've been clear about my definition. Perhaps you can supply one for
> Fred, since he has never been able to so.

That of course is a bald-faced lie which he repeats every time we get
into this debate.

If each time this subject comes up everything that has been said
before is ignored or forgotten and it is as if we are discussing it
for the first time, it becomes rather pointless. Of course if one is
on the premise that previous knowledge is irrelevant to the pursuit of
new knowledge, it doesn't matter.

After all, it is turtles all the way down, i.e. knowledge is
impossible anyway.

> > > And
> > > since you have long granted that we can be certain *and* wrong, you have
> > > conceded my position, apparently without being aware of doing so. If we
> > > can be certain *and* wrong, then how is it possible to "tell whether"?
> > > You need a process for "telling" that *cannot* be wrong.
>
> > Why does one need a process that "*cannot* be wrong"?
>
> Because that's what certainty (in my sense) requires. If you favor a
> certainty that can be wrong - as Fred does - then you don't need a
> method that cannot be wrong. Indeed, all you need is a coin to flip.

Of course there is a rather large range of other possibilities between
"cannot be wrong" ("in his sense") and coin flipping - a distinction
which Mark N. knows better than anyone since he has tried repeatedly
to impress that upon him for years, but to no avail.

He chooses to ignore that, just as he ignores everything else - except
of course his mantras which he repeats like a broken record.

In the meantime, it is still the case that cows *cannot* jump over the
moon.

I am *certain, Fred* of it.

Of course, if Gordon, TeaCup, or any of the other pill Poppers have
evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to look at it. I don't
claim omniscience. If some new fact should emerge bearing on the
subject, it would have to be considered. But in the absence of said
fact, it is the case that one can be *certain, Fred* of it.

The fact that we *can be wrong* has no bearing on this issue. None
whatsoever. That fact is the *very reason* why we need logic and the
scientific method. It doesn't undercut our knowledge. It is the reason
for the need of it.

> Strangely, though, he thinks that certainty is a strong constraint. The
> problem is that he cannot say how strong short of perfection it is. Can
> you help him out?

It is clearly not I who needs the help. But it is typical of the
pathological personality that it projects its disorder onto others.

It is not I who have trouble finding my car in a parking lot - or even
of knowing who I am.

Fred Weiss