Thief! Haha. No worries, I don't expect anyone to read all posts!

 

Last edited: Sep 18, 2020

Nobody has scientifically proven the existence of anything (Buddha).

 

I think being confident is a linear thing, not one and zero. The more information and understanding we have, the more confident we will be.

There are 2 issues here:
1- There is no end to awareness and sureness.
2. Is sureness a measurable quantity? Or, like other human senses, does it have only a qualitative basis? I mean, can sureness be measured with a scale?

 

I came to the conclusion that musicians are not very interested in serious words. It's better to go and make our music. Sorry, you had a hard time in this thread. I hope to convince myself not to post such things again.

 

Well, if we observe the definition of the word arguement, in particular in regards logic and philosophy, which it always is, then there really is only one type of arguement, regardless of to whom we are argueing with, their understanding of the word, and their level of awareness.
The first example you gave sounds to me like that person would just be trolling, and to ignore "the constraints of observable facts and logic" in either 'facts' situation you mention obviously won't work.

 

Yes I realised that; I was just cheekily borrowing the lovely coincidence of where you placed your unopposable question.
Thanks for tolerating

That's a philosophical question, not a scientific question.
The answer is simply No - there is nothing that we can be 100% certain of.
(other than the alleged certainty of knowing that thoughts exist - see earlier comment on Descartes Cogito, Ergo Sum)
But science is NOT about achieving 100% certainty - that would be delusional.
Science is about achieving confident predictability.
The delusional pursuit of certainty is for insecure mentalities only - it is not for science or art.

What science does do (brilliantly and usefully) is construct and refine superb explanatory models of reality.
- models that can provide useful reliable predictions about how things in the real world (will) behave.

Yes, in principle. With difficulty in practice. Science (and maths) has refined the art of quantifying how much confidence you can reasonably attach to the predictions it makes.
It is genuinely useful to end up believing that X is 80% likely to be the explanation and Y is only 20% likely.
And, pragmatically, it becomes possible to believe things like...
"Our theory X explains and predicts so reliably that we can say we are 'as near as damn it' certain that Y will happen"
"As near as damn it" certainty is bloody useful but it is never (philosophically or scientifically) the same as 100% certain.
Science thrives on assuming that everything can be questioned, even its most reliable, most tested models.

You asked... > Is sureness a measurable quantity?
Short answer - Yes. If you want more see spoiler

Spoiler: Quantifying Confidence

You asked... > Is sureness a measurable quantity?
If you asked that question seriously, then start reading about Bayesian Hypothesis Updating.
It will take you on a tour of exploring how to attach quantified levels of confidence to your dynamically changing beliefs.
Bayesian Hypothesis Updating is not just a philosophical game, it is now a mainstream instrument in science.
Although now mainstream science, it is not a practical tool for personal level quantifying of confidence in beliefs. That's just too damn complex for our feeble conscious minds. But there is also mounting evidence in cognitive science to suggest that at a level well below conscious level, your brain may be operating as a Bayesian Hypothesis Updating machine when you constantly refine your beliefs nanosecond by nanosecond.
e.g., a rustle in the leaves, was it just the harmless wind or a lion viewing you as lunch? refine your beliefs bloody quickly or die, no time to allow something as sluggish as concsiousness to be involved in life or death responses but your brain's gotta respond somehow and evolution seems to have latched onto something which we can now 'after the event' try to explain with Bayesian Hypothesis Updating.
It's good stuff to explore, but some maths required - high school algebra's enough.
Good Luck
or just take away the big picture...
We are constantly trying to predict 'what will happen' at both a personal and scientific level.
Science is brilliant at showing you how to predict more reliably and yes, it can and does quantify the confidence it has in its predictions.

Who had a hard time? What I saw was many many contributors finding a nice balance between funny and serious.
It was posted in the lounge, didn't break any rules, what's the problem?

 

A quote supposedly from Shakyamuni? Uh, right.

 

"Everything" except certain people. Who may or may not suffer from solipsism.

 

I can agree that it might be nice if ignoring the constraints of observable facts and logic always failed. That might indeed be a better world. But it's not the world we live in. Ignoring the contraints of observable facts and logic is definitely not just the domain of trolls. The entire modern political apparatus is built entirely on trying to change people's minds - and in that context, the truth and facts are merely occasionally useful devices which get ignored whenever convenient. Same argument applies to our legal system and to advertising, and to countless other areas in the domain of Social Facts.

===
Aside: Recommended reading (if anyone's interested)
I get my terminology of 'Brute Facts' versus 'Social Facts' from the philosopher John Searle
He wrote a brilliant book called "The Construction of Social Reality"
(Aside: In Searle's use - the term 'Brute Facts' means something slightly different to how a physicist might use the term)

 

Thank you pratyahara, quite informative, but as i wrote before, "Why?" is my contribution for the sentence nobody can oppose.

 

It's a simple word.
NO

 

Exactly. So they aren't abiding to the rules of what an arguement is, and those paradigms are not built on a solid grounding, therefore they fail, can be challenged (they are!) and defeated.
Because of this, I still stand by my assertion that there is only one type of arguement really.
I know we still see the 'variations' you mentioned, but to me they aren't real.
I just work with what feels true to me, and I get the results that I knew were possible.
I utilise the other's energy against them and they fail.
All martial techniques involve a step to the side to make this work.
As above, so below.
A template of truths and ways found in the micro, and the physical, will always work universally.
If the template is not based on what is, it will not apply universally.
This is why music was my choice in this world, I suppose.

 

You wrote...
> I know we still see the 'variations' you mentioned, but to me they aren't real.
I would have agreed if you said "but to me they aren't valid"

But the reality of irrational arguments prevailing is just an empirical observation.
I think we both agree that irrational forms of arguing are irritating and non-valid
but I would claim they also form the majority of what really happens in humanity's follies.

To staunchly support rational argument is a laudable minority sport.
It's refreshing but also idealistic.

 

brace yourself - maybe oldest solipsist joke... cringe alert!

"Solipsism seems perfectly reasonable to me - I can't understand why more people don't believe in it."

 

It was accidental... thanks for the benefit of the doubt.

 

@The Freq Great minds...

 

There is no you - there is only us.

 

Women are not guys.

 

An excess of reason is a form of insanity.

 

I'll wait to see what greater and more humourous minds say about this one...