Hello there. I'm the creator of this video. I would say that there no absolute certainty (that even goes for this statement!), as we cannot examine an infinite amount of cases to make that determination. If you throw a ball into the air, you could say that gravity will always bring it back to the ground, but would you know this for certain? Although it is probable that the ball will always fall back down, there is always the possibility that, given the right conditions, it might not.
cont. This is why it's more intellectually honest to say that something is probable as opposed to certain. Mathematics is somewhat of a problem for this argument, however, as most would say for example that 2+2=4 is a universal absolute truth, but that's a whole other issue. Thanks for the nice compliment!
Hello, thanks for the video. What do you mean at 06:16 when you say "with strong verifiability it is too easy to lapse into metaphysical statements"? how does the stronger criterion make it easy to lapse into metaphysical statements?
Strong verifiability does not allow generalizations, because it requires all cases to be verified. However, since it is impossible in many instances to verify all the cases, one can start imagining cases in which a statement is not true. You end up back like Descartes wondering if you are dreaming or not, which begins the metaphysical of whether or not we can know anything at all.
Great Video! I am enrolled in a Philosophy course online and have no way of asking questions about the different philosopher's claims, but as for this certain philosopher, you have cleared a lot of my uncertainties. Maybe you can help me better understand something, so far I have read through Rene Descartes, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and A.J. Ayer, and what I have gathered, thus far, is there is no certain knowledge but probable knowledge. Is this correct? or is this a bias conclusion?
There is room for scepticism but there are responses showing it as unintelligible e.g. Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' which outlines his argument regarding the logical structure of language and how it is stupid to doubt whether we know certain truths about our world with certainty.
That title is self-defeating, like: "Im not given a comment right now". Metaphysics is a principle; knowledge and science wouldn't exist without it, its a conscious motivation.
this is the great explanation that i ever seen
Thanks for a clear review of Ayer's comments about Metaphysics.
Yo man, thank you for this! Excellent study aid!
Wherof what we can not speak of therof we must be silent. Wittgenstein
Hello there. I'm the creator of this video. I would say that there no absolute certainty (that even goes for this statement!), as we cannot examine an infinite amount of cases to make that determination. If you throw a ball into the air, you could say that gravity will always bring it back to the ground, but would you know this for certain? Although it is probable that the ball will always fall back down, there is always the possibility that, given the right conditions, it might not.
thanks for the video!
Great 👍
cont. This is why it's more intellectually honest to say that something is probable as opposed to certain. Mathematics is somewhat of a problem for this argument, however, as most would say for example that 2+2=4 is a universal absolute truth, but that's a whole other issue.
Thanks for the nice compliment!
thanks
Hello, thanks for the video. What do you mean at 06:16 when you say "with strong verifiability it is too easy to lapse into metaphysical statements"? how does the stronger criterion make it easy to lapse into metaphysical statements?
Strong verifiability does not allow generalizations, because it requires all cases to be verified. However, since it is impossible in many instances to verify all the cases, one can start imagining cases in which a statement is not true. You end up back like Descartes wondering if you are dreaming or not, which begins the metaphysical of whether or not we can know anything at all.
Great Video! I am enrolled in a Philosophy course online and have no way of asking questions about the different philosopher's claims, but as for this certain philosopher, you have cleared a lot of my uncertainties. Maybe you can help me better understand something, so far I have read through Rene Descartes, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and A.J. Ayer, and what I have gathered, thus far, is there is no certain knowledge but probable knowledge. Is this correct? or is this a bias conclusion?
There is room for scepticism but there are responses showing it as unintelligible e.g. Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' which outlines his argument regarding the logical structure of language and how it is stupid to doubt whether we know certain truths about our world with certainty.
That title is self-defeating, like: "Im not given a comment right now". Metaphysics is a principle; knowledge and science wouldn't exist without it, its a conscious motivation.
You are conflating epistemology with metaphysics.
Bullshit hahaha