Quoting me, “Here is the primary problem with using the so-called uncertainty principle as the basis of logical argument—it makes every argument self-contradictory and therefore invalid.”
Then you said, “No it doesn’t Hank. It just makes arguments indeterminate, incomplete. This doesn’t necessarily make arguments invalid — unless determinism is the result you wanted corroborated from the get-go, and you won’t take ‘no!’ for an answer. But that’s ‘a horse of a different color.’
“In which case one could understand the dim view of folks who believe that knowledge isn’t knowledge unless it’s “certain” knowledge; who tend to hold a hostile opinion towards people who don’t agree with them, especially those who have the temerity to produce non-conforming evidence.”
Do you mean “argument” or “propositions?” Arguments can be indeterminate, and in formal logic there is a whole collection of such arguments. A proposition or statement, if it has meaning is always determinate. e.g. “the man is dead,” “the girl is pregnant,” “it is raining.” Either the man is dead, or he isn’t. Being able to detect that he’s dead might be difficult, but eventually it will be known whether he was or wasn’t, because his actual state cannot be indeterminate, only our knowledge of it. Same with the pregnant girl, eventually that actual state will be known, but our knowledge or lack does not determine the state.
Facts have nothing to do with what I want, and often I’d prefer for them to be different.
I do not know who thinks knowledge that is not certain knowledge is not knowledge at all. That’s certainly not me. The only thing I say is that the fact some knowledge is uncertain does not mean all knowledge is uncertain. There is a difference.
As for accepting non-conforming evidence, today it is the field of science, which has become much more like a religioin than science, shuns heaps of “non-conforming” evidence.
“The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics”
http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html
Now I have a question. You know about Shrodinger’s cat. Are you of the view the cat is truly neither dead or alive? or do you think, in reality it must be one or the other, but the uncertainty principle just makes it impossible to “know” without actually looking?
By the way, there is some “non-conforming evidence” that casts serious doubt on the uncertaintly principle. You’d be willing to look at that, wouldn’t you?
Hank
Of course!
Give me one example of knowledge that you consider certain (other than "death" and "taxes" — LOL!), and then tell me how you know it's certain; i.e., What is the basis or criterion on which your "certainty" rests?
Did you have a chance to find the link re: the uncertainty principle that you offered to share with me?