The AskPhilosophers logo.

Philosophy

I am a practical person. I wonder whether a good philosopher is able always to answer the questions on this site with a reasonable certainty about how certain he is of his answers ("Philosopher Meta-Certainty Ability")? The readers of this site would clearly benefit from knowing the degree of certainty of the answers they read. Therefore, if the Philosopher Meta-Certainty Ability exists, then the readers of this site would clearly benefit from the answers to this site being prefaced with "I'm not so sure of this..." or "I'm really sure of this..." But the answers on this site do not have such prefaces. So it appears that either (a) the Philosopher Meta-Certainty Ability doesn't exist, (b) it does exist but the philosophers on this site are consciously not doing something that would clearly benefit the readers, or (c) it does exist but the philosophers on this site are non-consciously not doing something that would clearly benefit the readers. Either (1) there are some additional possibilities beyond (a), (b), and (c) that I am missing or (2) there are not. QUESTION: Is (1) true or is (2) true? Why? If (2) is true, which of (a), (b), and (c) are true? This line of question gets at a less intellectual question, which is "Should I act on the answer to a question that I ask on this site, given that in my life I try to make decisions only for which I have reasonable certainty?"
Accepted:
November 17, 2010

Comments

Charles Taliaferro
November 18, 2010 (changed November 18, 2010) Permalink

Great question!

I have been reading and contributing to this site since last May and believe that there is very little in the way of philosophers claiming absolute I-could-not-possibly-be-wrong certainty. I believe this is why there is so little use of the word "prove" or "refute" in our discipline --unless the topic is logic. For example, I adopt a version of natural law theory of ethics as opposed to (for example) utilitarianism, but I would not claim to be able to prove the truth of natural law theory or refute utilitarianism. Moreover, except perhaps in technical matters of scholarship, I wager that very few (if any) of us would ever want readers to rely on our replies unless readers themselves considered the reasons offered good ones. Of course, I could be wrong.....

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/3672?page=0
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org