The statement “you can never be sure of anything” is a statement of absolution, stating that there are no absolutes. It is self contradictory, and a self destructing statement. It’s like saying to someone, “we can’t be sure that language and sound exist.” It makes no sense.
The reason why we have evolved is because we have figured out a method of how to understand existence. Maybe those that can’t be sure of anything have a different definition of “existence”. The accurate definition of existence is “that which is composed of matter and energy”. I think others might be (incorrectly) defining it as, “It exists if I believe it exists” (faith). When I say there are some things that we can be sure of as true or false, I’m referring to this physical world, not some imaginary alternate dimension that cannot be measured. Even if there were a way to measure the behavior of an alternate dimension, it still doesn’t change the the behavior of this physical universe.
Science is a method that helps us identify, verify, and predict the behavior of matter and energy in the fabric of space-time. Proper use of the scientific method is infallible. The proper application of the scientific method is to start with a proposition, then eliminate logical fallacies and contradictions. It must be verifiable, reproducible, universal, consistent, and predictable. The final arbiter of science is reality itself. Proper science will always accurately describe the behavior of matter and energy (objective reality). If it contradicts reality, then it’s not proper use of the method.
Concepts of human consciousness are not infallible. The empiricism of physical evidence always trumps concepts of the mind, because consciousness can contain fallacies, but matter and energy cannot.
I’ve never claimed that what we have now is the pinnacle of knowledge and understanding, there will always be more yet to be discovered, but that doesn’t mean that knowing more about physical reality will change physical reality.
Let’s say someone comes up with a method of describing reality that is superior to the scientific method, and this new method is embraced by the elite intellectuals in society because the intent of this method is to benefit the “greater good” of society. By the way, I have no idea what the definition of, or the criteria is for achieving “greater good”. Please let me know, if you have the answer. Let’s say this method concludes that rape is not a violation of individual sovereignty, and it also concludes that consciousness can exist without matter and energy. Since we “can’t be sure of anything” would this new method be embraced as much as the scientific method? If it’s embraced by elite sophists, and it’s newer, how do you determine if it’s better or not? How do you know if rape is a violation of self-ownership or not? Do you just go by what feels best in society at that moment, or by your personal faith, or do your opinions still have to bow to the empirical evidence of matter and energy? If we can’t be sure of anything, how is it that we know how to predict what so many elements of this universe will do when subjected to the stimuli of other elements.
Let’s say you want to bake a chocolate cake. Why do we have recipes? Do we just add the baking ingredients, and chocolaty tastiness hoping we will end up with a chocolate cake, and not an ice cream cone when we pull it out of the oven because we can’t be sure of anything. (I apologize for sounding so ridiculous, but this is how absurd this foggy unsure reasoning of reality is. I’m amazed that anyone actually takes agnosticism of physical reality to this level) If this new improved method of understanding concluded that water freezes at 250 degrees, and it becomes a gas at 40 degrees, would you put the ice cube tray in the oven, and steam your veggies in the freezer? No, you would still have to bow to the actual behavior of matter and energy, it doesn’t matter what your perception of it is at the time. As Aristotle said in the law of identity, “A is A.”
With all the advances in the science of physics, biology, chemistry, and other branches of the behavior of reality; The science of philosophy seems to be the one that is still in the primitive stage from 2500 years ago. Even the word “philosophy” seems abstract to some folks. It’s not an abstract subject that should make you glossy eyed. Philosophy is simply describing human existence as it is empirically, not what we think might be. It’s not up to the philosopher to verify what reality is. We verify reality by its very manifestation. We have progressed in some areas of philosophy and ethics by understanding the natural law of individual equal rights that made people realize slavery is wrong, and subjugation of women, and suppression of the rights of people based on sexual preference is wrong. So my wish is to continue down the road of the reality of individual equal rights from nature that has ended slavery, and suppression of rights by others, and keep showing you that you own 100% of you. No external being, or group of beings of any kind have ownership of your mind and body or anything that exists from the actions of your mind and body. The actions of the mythical abstraction of the mind that we call government, or the State, is by nature unethical, and a violation of your self ownership. That which the State claims is unethical for the population (theft, murder, and the initiation of force, coercion, and fraud) also claims it is ethical for the State, and that is a contradiction of ethics and individual sovereignty. I’m always happy to further elaborate on that contradiction if you are curious.
Folks seem to freak out a bit when confronted with the proposition of a voluntary society. Probably because it has never existed, because we haven’t evolved enough in our understanding of ethics yet, but we are making progress. A society without rulers may seem like a long shot, but remember, in the past, before America, a free market (the ability to voluntarily exchange goods and services without the force and coercion of rulers) seemed like a long shot and folks said it would be chaos. It wasn’t, and we had a free-ish market in America for a while until the rulers stepped in to “fix and help” things. The longer we had a free-ish market, the more we understood that cooperation with others by voluntary transactions and association was a more efficient and higher quality way of getting what we want rather than initiating force and coercion to get what we want. A society without slavery seemed like a long shot because every society before America had slavery since the beginning of mankind. We started to realize slavery is wrong because we all have individual equal rights. Folks used to say that slavery was human nature, or that it was human nature to rule or be ruled. That used to be the nature of humans, but as we evolve in our understanding of ethics, we also change our nature over time. Not very many folks around the world would say they have a natural inclination to own a slave or be enslaved. Let’s evolve even further, and realize that we will have a more efficient and higher quality society by use of voluntary methods, and it will be a more ethical society by having rules, not rulers. I’m just telling you that you should be free. Is that so scary?
