Question

...

Is there a name for a 100% Certainty fallacy?

This is an argument I mostly hear in theological or supernatural discussions, but it can really apply to anything. It goes like this: "We can't be 100% certain of anything, so my belief is just as valid as yours!"

Essentially it's using the problem of hard solipsism (e.g. "How do we know we're not all in the Matrix?") to argue that all conclusions are valid in the absence of absolute certainty. Using this reasoning could result in any number of fallacious statements, I was just wondering if there's a term for this specific argument.

asked on Thursday, Jan 19, 2023 03:41:19 PM by

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
3

I'll also throw in the least plausible hypothesis . People ignorant to reason will often not understand the difference between probability, plausibility, and possibility, and conflate lack of certainty with lack of probabilistic confidence. BTW, "We can't be 100% certain of anything, so my belief is just as valid as yours!" would be a non sequitur as it is written without any assumptions.

 
answered on Thursday, Jan 19, 2023 04:46:36 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Mchasewalker
3

Two options come to mind:

Appeal to Possibility

Argumentum ad Ignorantium

depending how it develops there could be more

 

answered on Thursday, Jan 19, 2023 03:54:08 PM by Mchasewalker

Mchasewalker Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Dr. Richard
2

In addition to the other comments, there is the burden of proof and concept of certainty.

I think it is essential to note that we can never be absolutely certain of anything other than metaphysical axioms, so we must assign a value to any proposition based upon the available evidence. To dismiss a proposition on the basis it hasn’t been proven beyond all possible doubt is fallacious reasoning if one seeks knowledge. We can, however, attain an epistemological certainty, which, loosely restated, means beyond a reasonable doubt, while keeping our minds open to additional evidence or a different interpretation of available evidence

answered on Friday, Jan 20, 2023 10:47:09 AM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
skips777 writes:

"we can never be absolutely certain of anything other than metaphysical axioms".... are you absolutely certain of this?

"We can, however, attain an epistemological certainty,"...are you absolutely certain of this? Or is this an epistemological claim which may have additional evidence that proves otherwise?

posted on Saturday, Jan 21, 2023 12:54:39 AM
...
0
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To skips777]

"we can never be absolutely certain of anything other than metaphysical axioms".... are you absolutely certain of this?

Perhaps not.  Maybe in the future we'll stumble upon something that really is certain. New evidence could emerge that proves our scepticism towards certainty wrong.

It does seem like a good rule of thumb though, due to the limits of human knowledge (see the problem of induction).

Basically the way I see it, "we can never be certain of anything" itself doesn't need to be certainly true to have meaning or value. If anything, it proves Dr Richard's point. But you do ask a good question.

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Jan 21, 2023 06:16:10 AM
...
0
skips777 writes:
[To TrappedPrior (RotE)]

"the way I see it, "we can never be certain of anything" itself doesn't need to be certainly true to have meaning or value."....The way you see it may be relevant to you, but there's a big world out there.

"(see the problem of induction)"......problem w/induction is self-defeating. By its own premise, this "problem" can change to not existing. Bertrand wasn't that intelligent or logical. Well, at least not to me...lol

" doesn't need to be certainly true to have meaning or value."....is this certainly true?

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Jan 21, 2023 07:23:51 PM
...
0
skips777 writes:

"It does seem like a good rule of thumb though, due to the limits of human knowledge"...

"due to the limits of human knowledge".....are you absolutely certain that there are limits? Please prove what "limit" is with evidence that it is absolutely limited. This is a self-defeating assertion. In order to know something is limited you would have to be aware of what is out of reach. Therefore, having knowledge beyond the "limit" in particular which defeats the claim of limited knowledge.

"It does seem like a good rule of thumb though, ..."......Seems to who? You? Do you think humanity accepts or should accept what "seems" to you? You wouldn't be arguing "what's most popular" because you know that's an ad populum fallacy.

posted on Saturday, Jan 21, 2023 07:12:59 PM
...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To skips777]

"due to the limits of human knowledge".....are you absolutely certain that there are limits? Please prove what "limit" is with evidence that it is absolutely limited. This is a self-defeating assertion. In order to know something is limited you would have to be aware of what is out of reach. Therefore, having knowledge beyond the "limit" in particular which defeats the claim of limited knowledge.

I think you're confusing knowledge of something being unknown with knowledge of that unknown itself (the latter is contradictory).

E.g. if I see someone I know they have a height of x centimetres, but I couldn't say what x is without measuring them. That's an unknown, but I know that it's unknown.

If I said "that person is 175cm" but then I claimed their height was unknown, then I'd be contradicting myself.

The fact that there are unsolved problems in philosophy, politics and the sciences also shows us that there are limits to knowledge.

"It does seem like a good rule of thumb though, ..."......Seems to who? You? Do you think humanity accepts or should accept what "seems" to you? You wouldn't be arguing "what's most popular" because you know that's an ad populum fallacy.

By "seems" I mean intuitively, and it's consistent with the facts. But someone could easily reject it if they wanted.

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Jan 22, 2023 05:37:53 AM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:
[To skips777]

When you envision a human with perfect knowledge of the universe, you end up with a religious figure like a Buddha. To envision a knowledge source that understands everything there is to know, you would have some type of AI god. I've had enough radical changes in understanding in my life to have some humility about the solidity of my knowledge.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Feb 14, 2023 04:59:34 PM
...
Erkan
1

false dilemma and argument from ignorance 
answered on Saturday, Jan 21, 2023 03:05:52 PM by Erkan

Erkan Suggested These Categories

Comments