Ok, well I haven't slept for coming up on 21 hours, so I'm hoping this makes as much sense when I read it later. It's mostly philosophy, so read at your own risk. Here is my conclusion: we can't know anything for certain... or, well, we probably can't know anything for certain, I'm not certain. It came up when I was sitting in the lounge and Tim came in, rather exited looking. I inquired, and he presented this argument, more'r less.
Testimony - even our own - must be relied on. All our knowledge, from what happened five minutes ago, to the great discoveries of science, would be useless without it. We have no reason to believe anything unless we assume the testimony of others and ourselves reliable. And yet on what basis do we do so? Is this testimony certain, I mean 100%, without a doubt, certain. I don't think it is.
Take even your own experience as an example. You and a friend are running along, and you both see something in your peripheral vision. Neither of you say anything about it until your around a corner. When you stop to take a rest, you mention the oddly placed banana that was sitting on the side of the path. Your partner looks at you rather odd, stating clearly that he saw naught but a small yellow bird. Now, one of you is wrong. One of you is giving false testimony to the past, and has no reason other then this discrepancy to believe it is wrong. This could go onto a huge scale as well. Everything you perceive could be a misperception (like The Matrix). It is similar in science. You can test something a million times, but there is no guarantee that the one million and first time it won't be different, you simply think it probable.
So what does this have to do with simple pieces on knowledge, like "I think, therefore I am," Descartes seemed to use it go get around the no-knowledge-for-certain thing. I would contend that you cannot think of all it takes to come to this conclusion in one instant. I think- instant gone. The space of an instant is infinitely small. I'm not going to argue time here, but the 10th chapter of Augustine’s confessions is a good place to start if your interested. Suffice to say, however, the point of an instant can be divided an infinite amount of times. It is very small. Because of this you will always be relying on your memory, your testimony of the past, to think anything.
So what does one do? You can know nothing certainly, or, well, you can probably know nothing certainly, since even this conclusion is subject to my memory of my premises. So, everything is only probable, less probably, or improbable, not certainly true or certainly false. Crazy, eh? Haha, I'm sure Brian would like this one.
Anyway, I'm sure that bored many of you, but I liked it. I've been arguing against this point for years. No one ever had this as their argument though, or at least I never stopped being annoying long enough for them to say it. Haha, I always gave the traditional Christian cocky-apologist answer.
"You can't know anything for sure!"
"Oh ya! Well, how do you know that, if you can't know anything for sure?"
People don't know what to answer to this. Tim did, and though it disproved our response to the argument, it still didn't make the argument true. You see, what I'm doing in asking this question is logical fallacy: Ad Hominum, to quo que. Just because this person isn't acting as if their point is true (their acting as though they can know that they can't know anything), does not mean their point is false.
Anyway, I have more on my mind, but it will go in another post.
~ ~ Aron
Recent Comments