EPISTEMOLOGY PART 8: CERTAINTY
Can you ever be certain of something? Philosophy
has long argued over the term "certain" and it has led to disastrous
consequences among skeptics regarding our ability to know things.
Perhaps you've heard the phrase, "no one can be certain of anything"?
Leaving aside the fact that this statement is self-refuting, it's important to have the ammunition to refute it, as it shows up constantly in both philosophy and popular culture.
Several years ago, I vacationed to Denmark and visited the Carlsberg Brewery. At the end of the tour I ended up buying a t-shirt that said Carlsberg: Probably the Best Beer in the World. While it's probably unfair to hold a beer ad to logical standards of epistemology and philosophy, it's important in the study of philosophy that we establish what it means to say "possible", "probable" or "certain". These terms get thrown around haphazardly in popular culture, but in philosophy they have more exact meanings. I certainly enjoyed visiting the Carlsberg Brewery and still think they a great slogan, but I can safely say that Carlsberg is probably not the best beer in the world! So how can I make a statement like that by following the philosophy we've covered so far?
KNOWLEDGE IS CONTEXTUAL
First, we have to remember that all human knowledge is based off reason and is contextual. We can't know everything, as we're not omniscient. In fact, the very idea of omniscience or all-knowing is a mystical, supernatural concept. All of our knowledge is based off of observations by our senses, and the extent to which we can infer things by logic. At each step of the way, there is a context to our knowledge. Remember the example of a child whose contextual knowledge of "person" might start out with "a thing that moves and makes sounds", then progress to "an animal without fur that walks on two legs", then eventually "a rational animal". At each of these steps, the understanding of "person" is correct given the child's context of knowledge. As the child's context of knowledge grows, their definitions and understandings of concepts will change, but if properly formed will never contradict earlier knowledge. This is why it's always important to identify your knowledge in context, or else when new information or discoveries are made they might appear to contradict what you thought you knew.
Several years ago, I vacationed to Denmark and visited the Carlsberg Brewery. At the end of the tour I ended up buying a t-shirt that said Carlsberg: Probably the Best Beer in the World. While it's probably unfair to hold a beer ad to logical standards of epistemology and philosophy, it's important in the study of philosophy that we establish what it means to say "possible", "probable" or "certain". These terms get thrown around haphazardly in popular culture, but in philosophy they have more exact meanings. I certainly enjoyed visiting the Carlsberg Brewery and still think they a great slogan, but I can safely say that Carlsberg is probably not the best beer in the world! So how can I make a statement like that by following the philosophy we've covered so far?
KNOWLEDGE IS CONTEXTUAL
First, we have to remember that all human knowledge is based off reason and is contextual. We can't know everything, as we're not omniscient. In fact, the very idea of omniscience or all-knowing is a mystical, supernatural concept. All of our knowledge is based off of observations by our senses, and the extent to which we can infer things by logic. At each step of the way, there is a context to our knowledge. Remember the example of a child whose contextual knowledge of "person" might start out with "a thing that moves and makes sounds", then progress to "an animal without fur that walks on two legs", then eventually "a rational animal". At each of these steps, the understanding of "person" is correct given the child's context of knowledge. As the child's context of knowledge grows, their definitions and understandings of concepts will change, but if properly formed will never contradict earlier knowledge. This is why it's always important to identify your knowledge in context, or else when new information or discoveries are made they might appear to contradict what you thought you knew.
My French is pretty rusty, but this looks like a fail!
Take astronomy, for example. When Copernicus and then
Galileo put forth that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the
universe, that was correct within their context of knowledge, as it
applied logic (using science and mathematics) to numerous observations
by other astronomers regarding the movement of celestial bodies.
As physics progressed with Newton, then Einstein, then to Hawking, our
context of knowledge has changed, and now we would say the Sun is only a
tiny part of the Milky Way Galaxy, which is a tiny blip in what we can
see of our universe (never mind that 1 out of 5 people still think the
sun revolves around the earth!). Notice that if Copernicus said, "the
Sun is the center of the universe, end of story!" he would be
devastated and have to throw away everything he knew when later
discoveries proved that wrong. Implicit in every scientific
discovery are the words, "according to all available evidence and
knowledge, this is the correct conclusion". If you think this way, then
you will welcome new findings and discoveries as a way to expand your
knowledge, not as a threat to your current thoughts and dogmas. This is
why religions always have so much trouble with new science, as their
teachings end up making people fear, instead of embrace, new contexts of
knowledge. The result is that devout followers have the horrific choice
of outright denying obvious evidence like the universe is billions of
years old, or a grudging acceptance while trying desperately to change
their doctrine to accommodate it.
I think this would fall under denial
Hopefully, by this
point we've accepted that the only means to valid human knowledge is reason,
and that all knowledge is contextual by nature. If so, we can move on
to think about the intermediate stages of knowledge which often apply to
our higher level concepts: possible, probable and certain; and their
nemesis, the arbitrary.
POSSIBLE
To say something is possible epistemologically means that there is a little evidence, but not much, to support the claim. The best way to express this is to think about a murder investigation. Let's say a man was murdered in his home by a gunshot to the head. The first step for a detective would be to analyze all of the available evidence to start getting a list of possible suspects. If he finds that there was no sign of forced entry and one of the victim's friends was having a secret affair with his wife, and that he had access to the house, that would be grounds to say it's possible that he was the murderer. We have some evidence that would point to the murderer here, but not much. Enough to warrant further investigation, but not enough to arrest the man on any charges.
It would not be proper to pick out a member of the community at random and say it's possible they committed the murder. Possible means you must provide at least some evidence that your theory could be true. Just because some men are capable of murder does NOT mean that a particular man could have murdered someone. In order to say so, you must provide at least some evidence to support that conclusion. Just because some men can run a marathon in less than 2 1/2 hours or bench press 500 lbs doesn't mean it's possible for me to do so (at least not in my current state!). If you looked at my recent workout history and saw that I ran 3 miles in 27 minutes, then it could be argued that it's possible for me to run a marathon in 4 hours (although I might disagree!). In the example of Carlsberg Beer above, you could make a case that Carlsberg is possibly the world's best beer, although even that might be a stretch! Often today, the word "possible" or "maybe" is used where there is no valid evidence provided. "It's possible we don't exist and our brains are plugged in the Matrix", or "maybe Astrology is true". These statements actually take the reverse approach of proper epistemology, and put forth that something could be true if you haven't definitively proved it's not. This is a fallacy, as it misunderstands how knowledge is arrived at. These types of "possible" statements should instead be regarded as "arbitrary", which we will get into in the next post.
POSSIBLE
To say something is possible epistemologically means that there is a little evidence, but not much, to support the claim. The best way to express this is to think about a murder investigation. Let's say a man was murdered in his home by a gunshot to the head. The first step for a detective would be to analyze all of the available evidence to start getting a list of possible suspects. If he finds that there was no sign of forced entry and one of the victim's friends was having a secret affair with his wife, and that he had access to the house, that would be grounds to say it's possible that he was the murderer. We have some evidence that would point to the murderer here, but not much. Enough to warrant further investigation, but not enough to arrest the man on any charges.
It would not be proper to pick out a member of the community at random and say it's possible they committed the murder. Possible means you must provide at least some evidence that your theory could be true. Just because some men are capable of murder does NOT mean that a particular man could have murdered someone. In order to say so, you must provide at least some evidence to support that conclusion. Just because some men can run a marathon in less than 2 1/2 hours or bench press 500 lbs doesn't mean it's possible for me to do so (at least not in my current state!). If you looked at my recent workout history and saw that I ran 3 miles in 27 minutes, then it could be argued that it's possible for me to run a marathon in 4 hours (although I might disagree!). In the example of Carlsberg Beer above, you could make a case that Carlsberg is possibly the world's best beer, although even that might be a stretch! Often today, the word "possible" or "maybe" is used where there is no valid evidence provided. "It's possible we don't exist and our brains are plugged in the Matrix", or "maybe Astrology is true". These statements actually take the reverse approach of proper epistemology, and put forth that something could be true if you haven't definitively proved it's not. This is a fallacy, as it misunderstands how knowledge is arrived at. These types of "possible" statements should instead be regarded as "arbitrary", which we will get into in the next post.
PROBABLE
For a theory or assertion to reach the status of "probable", one needs to have a significant amount of evidence that makes it more likely than not that something is true. In the case of our murder investigation, the detective finds out that the man in question had made plans to run away with the victim's wife, he had no alibi on the night of the murder, he had all sorts of contradictions in his testimony, there was no other person with motive and access to the murder scene (the wife was out of town), and he had bought a gun the month before the murder. At this point, the preponderance of the evidence points to this man as the murderer, although there is still some reasonable doubt left, and he probably couldn't (nor should he) be convicted based only on this. While the evidence suggests it's likely he is the murderer, there are still pieces that still need to be put together like putting him at the scene of the crime and having access to the murder weapon.
For a theory or assertion to reach the status of "probable", one needs to have a significant amount of evidence that makes it more likely than not that something is true. In the case of our murder investigation, the detective finds out that the man in question had made plans to run away with the victim's wife, he had no alibi on the night of the murder, he had all sorts of contradictions in his testimony, there was no other person with motive and access to the murder scene (the wife was out of town), and he had bought a gun the month before the murder. At this point, the preponderance of the evidence points to this man as the murderer, although there is still some reasonable doubt left, and he probably couldn't (nor should he) be convicted based only on this. While the evidence suggests it's likely he is the murderer, there are still pieces that still need to be put together like putting him at the scene of the crime and having access to the murder weapon.
Guys, according to a philosophy class I took in college, we can't be certain about anything. How can you be sure the heart is there?
CERTAIN
After the CSI team does the forensic tests, they determine that the man in question had fingerprints at the scene of the crime, that the murder weapon was his gun, and cell phone data put him at the scene of the crime at the proper time. At this point, the District Attorney would have enough evidence to bring him to trial and convince a jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, given the context of all the evidence and knowledge available to us, we can be certain that he committed the murder. It's not valid for the defense attorney to bring up arbitrary doubts like "maybe the detective framed him" or "this psychic says that he is innocent" or "maybe aliens came and hypnotized him and forced to do it". Remember, "maybe" is the same as "possible", and it requires some evidence to establish it. If there is no evidence pointing to the detective trying to frame the guy, then it shouldn't be regarded as possible, and the jury should disregard it.
The problem most of us run into is that we can imagine a situation where the suspect was framed, falsely accused, wrong place at wrong time, etc. and conclude it then must be possible. This is intellectually lazy, and we must fight against it, just as we wouldn't let a scientist say, "it's possible the sun could revolve around the earth tomorrow". Being able to imagine something doesn't mean it's possible. Remember, human certainty means "according to all available evidence and knowledge, this is the correct conclusion". As long as the crime was properly analyzed, this is the only conclusion one could make, and no other options are "possible".
Certainty is not only possible for humans, but essential in order to live our lives properly and to move on to the next levels of philosophy, ethics and politics. It's often not easy to arrive at certainty, as it takes a comprehensive analysis of all the available evidence and the use of logic to make sure there are no contradictions. In the case of something like "I need food and water to live", it might not be too difficult to arrive at certainty. For something like, "which economic theory is correct" or "which form of government is best" might be extraordinarily difficult to be certain about, because of the amount of available evidence to examine. However, just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing. When flying an airplane, I'm certain that when I pull back on the yoke, the airplane will climb. To look at it any other way would be terrifying. When a surgeon is operating, they need to be certain where the heart is. When a lawyer is arguing a case, they need to be certain about the law. When a musician is playing a concert, they need to be certain that putting their fingers on certain frets will make a C chord and not an E chord. There is a long line of skeptics in philosophy that claim human knowledge isn't possible, and that we can never be certain of anything. How they were able to form that theory when they assert no knowledge is possible isn't quite clear, but just ask yourself, "would I want someone like that operating on me?"
Certainty is possible to us, but only certainty in a specific context, and our knowledge should always be treated as such. Any claims or appeals to notions like "absolute certainty" are typically supernatural in nature, and fall under the realm of the arbitrary which we'll cover next.
After the CSI team does the forensic tests, they determine that the man in question had fingerprints at the scene of the crime, that the murder weapon was his gun, and cell phone data put him at the scene of the crime at the proper time. At this point, the District Attorney would have enough evidence to bring him to trial and convince a jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, given the context of all the evidence and knowledge available to us, we can be certain that he committed the murder. It's not valid for the defense attorney to bring up arbitrary doubts like "maybe the detective framed him" or "this psychic says that he is innocent" or "maybe aliens came and hypnotized him and forced to do it". Remember, "maybe" is the same as "possible", and it requires some evidence to establish it. If there is no evidence pointing to the detective trying to frame the guy, then it shouldn't be regarded as possible, and the jury should disregard it.
The problem most of us run into is that we can imagine a situation where the suspect was framed, falsely accused, wrong place at wrong time, etc. and conclude it then must be possible. This is intellectually lazy, and we must fight against it, just as we wouldn't let a scientist say, "it's possible the sun could revolve around the earth tomorrow". Being able to imagine something doesn't mean it's possible. Remember, human certainty means "according to all available evidence and knowledge, this is the correct conclusion". As long as the crime was properly analyzed, this is the only conclusion one could make, and no other options are "possible".
Certainty is not only possible for humans, but essential in order to live our lives properly and to move on to the next levels of philosophy, ethics and politics. It's often not easy to arrive at certainty, as it takes a comprehensive analysis of all the available evidence and the use of logic to make sure there are no contradictions. In the case of something like "I need food and water to live", it might not be too difficult to arrive at certainty. For something like, "which economic theory is correct" or "which form of government is best" might be extraordinarily difficult to be certain about, because of the amount of available evidence to examine. However, just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing. When flying an airplane, I'm certain that when I pull back on the yoke, the airplane will climb. To look at it any other way would be terrifying. When a surgeon is operating, they need to be certain where the heart is. When a lawyer is arguing a case, they need to be certain about the law. When a musician is playing a concert, they need to be certain that putting their fingers on certain frets will make a C chord and not an E chord. There is a long line of skeptics in philosophy that claim human knowledge isn't possible, and that we can never be certain of anything. How they were able to form that theory when they assert no knowledge is possible isn't quite clear, but just ask yourself, "would I want someone like that operating on me?"
Certainty is possible to us, but only certainty in a specific context, and our knowledge should always be treated as such. Any claims or appeals to notions like "absolute certainty" are typically supernatural in nature, and fall under the realm of the arbitrary which we'll cover next.