Socrates philosophy and method

[JimL]

There is at least one thing that you believe to know with absolute certainty, which is that you know with absolute certainty that you don't know anything with absolute certainty. But I get your point, I'm not absolutely certain that I agree, but its something to think about.

[MaxVel]

I only believe you cannot know for absolute certainty. So far you have not clarified your position differentiating certainty from clams of absolute truth from the human perspective.

Yes they could be right, but I do not believe that can be right for absolutely certain.

But you yourself aren't (can't be) absolutely certain about that, either. So it is possible that someone could be certain about something.

So, again, your skepticism undermines itself, and prevents you from saying anything definite about knowledge.


My position: Humans can make mistakes, and can be wrong about things. But there exist real truths, and we can know, and be certain about, those truths.

That doesn't mean that everything we know is certain, nor does it mean that nothing we know is certain. We should proportion our degree of certainty about a truth claim on the evidence we have for it. Since the available evidence for a claim can vary from person to person, different people can (rationally) have different degrees of certainty about any particular claim.


Also, on the Christian worldview, humans were designed with the ability to know and have a meaningful relationship with God, and thus with the ability to correctly apprehend real truths. So it is at least possible for humans to know some truths with absolute certainty.

. . . because it is the rational and intellectually honest and positive way to go with the Socratic Philosophy and Method.

No coherent response here.

This is one of your pet phrases that is needlessly dismissive, and unhelpful. Further, it makes no sense. If a reply wasn't at all coherent, you would have to simply ask for clarification, or for the person to rephrase their response entirely, since an incoherent response makes no sense.

But that's not what you did. You obviously do understand the bulk of my response, since you replied to it, and thus it was coherent - you demonstrate that by your own actions.

It would be a rational positive attitude if you would reread my post and respond constructively.

I have, and do.

Pointing out that there are serious problems with a global skepticism, and asking questions to clarify exactly what you are saying (both of which I have done) is constructive, in that it moves the conversation forward to a deeper understanding, and allows you to rethink your own position in the light of challenges to it. Perhaps you will see some problems, and modify, or abandon your current position for a better one - that would be constructive. Perhaps you will feel that your position withstands those challenges, and move on with a greater degree of certainty - that is also constructive.

I edited it to clarify some points.

So far you have not clarified your position differentiating certainty from clams of absolute truth from the human perspective.

Bottom line: Just because someone can be wrong doesn't mean that they are (always) wrong. So, I think you go too far in rejecting a priori all absolute truth claims on the basis that we can be wrong.

Analogy: People can be wrong about maths addition problems. Therefore no-one can know the true answer for any maths addition problem.

Clearly that doesn't follow. I submit that your reasoning about absolute truth claims follows the same flawed model.

[shunyadragon]

But you yourself aren't (can't be) absolutely certain about that, either. So it is possible that someone could be certain about something.

So, again, your skepticism undermines itself, and prevents you from saying anything definite about knowledge.

False, the fallacy of self-refutation does not justify your argument. Skepticism does not prevent one from having degrees of certainty and beliefs about many things.

My position: Humans can make mistakes, and can be wrong about things. But there exist real truths, and we can know, and be certain about, those truths.

You need to clarify 'real truths.' Doe this translate to 'absolute truths?' Yes we can be wrong about things, and it is problematic from the fallible human perspective if anything is 'absolutely true,' and we cannot be wrong about that 'absolute truth.'

That doesn't mean that everything we know is certain, nor does it mean that nothing we know is certain. We should proportion our degree of certainty about a truth claim on the evidence we have for it. Since the available evidence for a claim can vary from person to person, different people can (rationally) have different degrees of certainty about any particular claim.

Evidence for certainty diminishes greatly once you move beyond what is objectively falsifiable by the consistent methods of Methodological Naturalism.

Also, on the Christian worldview, humans were designed with the ability to know and have a meaningful relationship with God, and thus with the ability to correctly apprehend real truths. So it is at least possible for humans to know some truths with absolute certainty.

God is not design engineer creating automatons, and the clam of 'correctly apprehending real truths' is loaded with contradictions, anecdotal, and conflicting beliefs in different views within Christianity, and beyond this it gets worse. Being possible does not translate into any degree of certainty.

This is one of your pet phrases that is needlessly dismissive, and unhelpful. Further, it makes no sense. If a reply wasn't at all coherent, you would have to simply ask for clarification, or for the person to rephrase their response entirely, since an incoherent response makes no sense.

Yep! When you perpetually commit the fallacy of self-refutation it does not make sense. Also,asserting that something is possible is grounds for certainty is even worse.

But that's not what you did. You obviously do understand the bulk of my response, since you replied to it, and thus it was coherent - you demonstrate that by your own actions.

Responding to your posts and understanding the English does not translate into coherent responses on your part.

Pointing out that there are serious problems with a global skepticism, and asking questions to clarify exactly what you are saying (both of which I have done) is constructive, in that it moves the conversation forward to a deeper understanding, and allows you to rethink your own position in the light of challenges to it. Perhaps you will see some problems, and modify, or abandon your current position for a better one - that would be constructive. Perhaps you will feel that your position withstands those challenges, and move on with a greater degree of certainty - that is also constructive.

There are no serious problems with global skepticism. Global skepticism has different form, and it does not necessarily result in denying degrees of Certainty. As in Socratic philosophy it just means everything is open to question and skepticism even the things one believes. No I have not moved on with any greater certainty on this issue. You perpetually commit the fallacy of self-refutation.

Bottom line: Just because someone can be wrong doesn't mean that they are (always) wrong. So, I think you go too far in rejecting a priori all absolute truth claims on the basis that we can be wrong.

No, it does not mean the someone is always wrong concerning absolute truth claims. A clock that is not running can provide the correct time once in 12 hours. Consistency in absolute truth claims and the diversity and contradictions with such claims.

You still have not clarified the difference between certainty and absolute truth claims in your view.

Analogy: People can be wrong about maths addition problems. Therefore no-one can know the true answer for any maths addition problem.

Flawed simplistic analogy. Not relevant.

Clearly that doesn't follow. I submit that your reasoning about absolute truth claims follows the same flawed model.

I disagree.

[shunyadragon]

There is at least one thing that you believe to know with absolute certainty, which is that you know with absolute certainty that you don't know anything with absolute certainty. But I get your point, I'm not absolutely certain that I agree, but its something to think about.

I thought we had been over this awkward fallacy turf before. You are neck deep in the Fallacy of self-refutation, and very very far from anything I have proposed nor claimed. Are you being sarcastic, ironic, or just cute? If this is a serious challenge on your part pease cite me specifically and cite the fallacy I have committed.

Source: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/qa/Bo/LogicalFallacies/2W4Vk9w9/Is_it_an_absolute_truth_and_we_can_not_know_absolute_truths

It is one of those questions that people who think they "gotcha" like to ask.
"Oh, we can't be certain about anything? Are you certain about that?"
Clearly, if one is rejecting the idea of certainty, truth, or any other concept,
when they make a statement such as "there is no..." they are not claiming certainly,
truth, or whatever.

The person who asks that question is trying to set the other person
up for a self-refuting statement (a fallacy). One could argue that the question
itself reflect a self-refutation, but clearly those who ask this question
are being ironic and attempting to point out an illogical position.
Just to reiterate, the position is ONLY illogical if someone were to claim
certainty that there is no certainty, or similar self-refutation.
Bo Bennett, PhD

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

I thought we had been over this awkward fallacy turf before. You are neck deep in the Fallacy of self-refutation, and very very far from anything I have proposed nor claimed. Are you being sarcastic, ironic, or just cute? If this is a serious challenge on your part pease cite me specifically and cite the fallacy I have committed.

Source: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/qa/Bo/LogicalFallacies/2W4Vk9w9/Is_it_an_absolute_truth_and_we_can_not_know_absolute_truths

It is one of those questions that people who think they "gotcha" like to ask.
"Oh, we can't be certain about anything? Are you certain about that?"
Clearly, if one is rejecting the idea of certainty, truth, or any other concept,
when they make a statement such as "there is no..." they are not claiming certainly,
truth, or whatever.

The person who asks that question is trying to set the other person
up for a self-refuting statement (a fallacy). One could argue that the question
itself reflect a self-refutation, but clearly those who ask this question
are being ironic and attempting to point out an illogical position.
Just to reiterate, the position is ONLY illogical if someone were to claim
certainty that there is no certainty, or similar self-refutation.
Bo Bennett, PhD

© Copyright Original Source

So, you are not absolutely certain that we can't know anything with absolute certainty?

[shunyadragon]

So, you are not absolutely certain that we can't know anything with absolute certainty?

Fallacy of Self-Refutation by definition. The question cannot be logically answered. I do not bite on foolish 'begging the question' "gotcha questions."

Source: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/qa/Bo/LogicalFallacies/2W4Vk9w9/Is_it_an_absolute_truth_and_we_can_not_know_absolute_truths

It is one of those questions that people who think they "gotcha" like to ask.
"Oh, we can't be certain about anything? Are you certain about that?"
Clearly, if one is rejecting the idea of certainty, truth, or any other concept,
when they make a statement such as "there is no..." they are not claiming certainly,
truth, or whatever.

The person who asks that question is trying to set the other person
up for a self-refuting statement (a fallacy). One could argue that the question
itself reflect a self-refutation, but clearly those who ask this question
are being ironic and attempting to point out an illogical position.
Just to reiterate, the position is ONLY illogical if someone were to claim
certainty that there is no certainty, or similar self-refutation.
Bo Bennett, PhD

© Copyright Original Source

Are you willing to challenge our American legal system based on the Socratic Philosophy and method where there are no absolutes and all convictions are based on 'beyond reasonable doubt,' and not convictions in terms of absolutes?

In reality our legal system: Our courts decisions "are not absolutely certain and we can't know anything legally with absolute certainty."

[Adrift]

So, you are not absolutely certain that we can't know anything with absolute certainty?

Yeah, I don't get this. This Bennett fellow seems to be refuting shunyadragon, not helping his argument. He says, "Just to reiterate, the position is ONLY illogical if someone were to claim certainty that there is no certainty, or similar self-refutation" which is precisely what shunya appears guilty of. shunya is providing the ammunition to shoot his own argument down.

Oh, looks like seer caught onto this last month when shunya first started using it as an argument, but apparently shunya's reading comprehension is so bad that he can't seem to understand that it undermines his own argument.

Sad, but predictable.

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, I don't get this. This Bennett fellow seems to be refuting shunyadragon, not helping his argument. He says, "Just to reiterate, the position is ONLY illogical if someone were to claim certainty that there is no certainty, or similar self-refutation" which is precisely what shunya appears guilty of. shunya is providing the ammunition to shoot his own argument down.

Oh, looks like seer caught onto this last month when shunya first started using it as an argument, but apparently shunya's reading comprehension is so bad that he can't seem to understand that it undermines his own argument.

Sad, but predictable.

Sad, but predictable. Apparently Adrift's, seer's JimL's, and Sparko's reading comprehension is so bad that they can't seem to understand in plan English that it undermines their own arguments, You ALL need to read the whole citation in context, and not what you feel agrees with you which it does not. Bo's response was directed toward an exact quote from seer, and not anything I wrote.

Source: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/qa/Bo/LogicalFallacies/2W4Vk9w9/Is_it_an_absolute_truth_and_we_can_not_know_absolute_truths

It is one of those questions that people who think they "gotcha"
like to ask.
"Oh, we can't be certain about anything? Are you certain about that?"
Clearly, if one is rejecting the idea of certainty, truth, or any other concept,
when they make a statement such as "there is no..."
they are not claiming certainly, truth, or whatever.

The person who asks that question is trying to set the other person
up for a self-refuting statement (a fallacy). One could argue that the question
itself reflect a self-refutation, but clearly those who ask this question
are being ironic and attempting to point out an illogical position.
Just to reiterate, the position is ONLY illogical if someone were to claim
certainty that there is no certainty, or similar self-refutation.
Bo Bennett, PhD

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Sad, but predictable. Apparently Adrift's, seer's JimL's, and Sparko's reading comprehension is so bad that they can't seem to understand in plan English that it undermines their own arguments.

Shuny, if a number of people are telling you that you are pant-less, you should look down.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, if a number of people are telling you that you are pant-less, you should look down.

No problem, I am fully dressed.

[shunyadragon]

I believe I will up the anti concerning the concept of 'Certainty' and philosophical issues as of how 'certainty' applies to the real world. It is also interesting that a number of Twebbers have objected to my views, but failed to address Socrates Methods and Philosophy on which it is based.

For example, when I brought up our legal system and the measure of Socratic certainty that determines legal guilt is based on the same philosophical assumption I base my world view . . . there was silence.

Certainty is not as idealistically certain as many want it to be to justify their beliefs.

Certainty part I

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

Certainty

First published Sat Feb 2, 2008
Like knowledge, certainty is an epistemic property of beliefs. (In a derivative way, certainty is also an epistemic property of subjects: S is certain that p just in case S's belief that p is certain.) Although some philosophers have thought that there is no difference between knowledge and certainty, it has become increasingly common to distinguish them. On this conception, then, certainty is either the highest form of knowledge or is the only epistemic property superior to knowledge. One of the primary motivations for allowing kinds of knowledge less than certainty is the widespread sense that skeptical arguments are successful in showing that we rarely or never have beliefs that are certain (see Unger 1975 for this kind of skeptical argument) but do not succeed in showing that our beliefs are altogether without epistemic worth (see, for example, Lehrer 1974, Williams 1999, and Feldman 2003; see Fumerton 1995 for an argument that skepticism undermines every epistemic status a belief might have; and see Klein 1981 for the argument that knowledge requires certainty, which we are capable of having).

As with knowledge, it is difficult to provide an uncontentious analysis of certainty. There are several reasons for this. One is that there are different kinds of certainty, which are easy to conflate. Another is that the full value of certainty is surprisingly hard to capture. A third reason is that there are two dimensions to certainty: a belief can be certain at a moment or over some greater length of time.

© Copyright Original Source