humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Gordon Sollars wrote:

> In article ,
> mark@myinboxisbroken.com says...
>
>>
>>>If you favor a
>>>certainty that can be wrong - as Fred does - then you don't need a
>>>method that cannot be wrong. Indeed, all you need is a coin to flip.
>>>[...]
>>
>>Why does the phrase "false alternative" come to mind here? :-\
>
> OK, Mark, let's see you do it. Stake out the territory greater than 50%
> but less than 100%. Do you favor 90%? Or 99%? Or is "certainty" more
> like 99.9%? Or perhaps 99.99%? More to the original point, what number
> do you think Fred is using?

I don't have any number in mind, and I don't think Fred does either.
Fred's sense of certainty isn't like that.

You are looking for -- demanding, even! -- something that simply does
not exist, and that you have been told does not exist -- namely, a
formal account of Fred's notion of certainty.

Does the fact that Fred lacks a formal account of his notion of
certainty imply that there is something wrong with it, or that it's
worthless? I don't think so. Maybe you do. But, in any event, you can
save yourself a lot of trouble by just recognizing that there is no such
account being offered. Deal with it and move on! :-)

Mark