“You give me examples, but not the “how” involved.”
The “how” has nothing to do with Newton. And it has nothing to do with repeated observations. The how has to do only with the fact that it’s been done, and it only needed to be done once.
Do you have any doubts at all that heavier than air human flight is possible?
That’s the certaintly.
Have you ever seen a plane flying. Be honest; do you doubt it was really flying?
I think you are desparate to make knowledge uncertain. I cannot imagine why, but I think it is very dangerous. Why would you object to certainty in knowledge? Certainty in knowledge doesn’t mean you know everything, or even most things, it only means there are some things you can be absolutely certain about. If that were not the case, you would really know nothing.
Hank
And you'd stake a future on such flimsy grounds??? Done, but only once???
I may be a dim-witted, knuckle-dragging Christian, but I have to tell you: I require more substantial evidence than "done, but only once." We call that a "datum." It has no meaning whatever in isolation.
I'm trying to decoct your statement. Thought I'm not entirely certain of its meaning, I'll take my best stab at answering.
On the one hand, I am perfectly comfortable with the uncertainty of knowledge. It just reminds me that nothing is complete without God.
On the other hand, I have no objection in principle to the "certainty of knowledge." I just don't think it's possible, given that the human mind is finite.
Thus the assertion of "certain knowledge" is a pure abstraction to me, for it has no basis in actual reality that I can tell. The "empirical approach" demonstrates that the typical human situation involves having to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. This is seemingly the universal human condition.
And thus on the basis of observation and experience, I have no reason to believe that "the certainty of knowledge" is even possible.