this is weird because how did they figure it out?
then their opponents, the infallibilists, say they are sure of things.
but sometimes the stuff they are sure about turns out wrong later
both sides have the same hidden idea: that ideas should be proved or established or supported to make them sure or more sure.
and one side is saying we can do that, and the other side says it doesn't work so we're screwed.
the majority think we can be sure. because people do have knowledge. we build computers that work. we figured out how to make airplanes and bicycles.
but the doubters have some good points. there are logical reasons that the sureness stuff doesn't work. no one has ever been able to answer those logical arguments.
another approach is that we don't need to be sure. we can make an iPhone without being sure of anything, and it can still work. sureness was the wrong thing to look for. we should be looking for other stuff instead. so the whole debate was missing the point.
everyone was stuck on this issue for over 2000 years. Karl Popper got it unstuck like 50 years ago.
being sure is like trying to say "this idea is good because..." and then it scores points for every argument you give. people then compare how much sureness or points different ideas have.
the alternative is to look for problems with your ideas. try to figure out what's bad about them. if you can't find any problems, it's a good idea to use for now.
we don't have to be sure, but we can improve our ideas. if we see a problem and make a change to fix it, now we have a better idea than before. we don't know if it's true. we don't know if it has a bunch more problems. but we learned something. we made progress.
if an idea has a problem that isn't fixed, then we shouldn't use it no matter how sure anyone is. sureness isn't relevant.
and if there's no problems anyone knows of, then why wouldn't you use it? there's no objections. so sureness doesn't matter here either.
Exampleso there's a cow farmer, and he says he's sure he has 3 cows. but a skeptic says "how do you know you have 3 cows? you can't be sure of anything. maybe you've been hallucinating and have goats"
the cow farmer is saying how sure he is when actually he shouldn't be sure. maybe he DID hallucinate. or lots of other things. there's ways he could be wrong. it's POSSIBLE.
it turns out some wolves ate one of the cows last night, and he didn't check yet. so actually he has 2 cows. he was wrong. he shouldn't have been so SURE.
the skeptic is dumb too b/c he just doubts everything. except not really. it's kinda random. he didn't point out that maybe the cow farmer didn't exist and he (the skeptic) was hallucinating. he didn't worry that maybe he hallucinated his dinner.
the skeptic didn't know the wolves attacked. he didn't have any information that there weren't 3 cows.
he wasn't saying something useful. there wasn't any way the cow farmer should act differently once he finds out the skeptic's idea.
so the guy who was sure was risking being wrong. he can't be SURE there were no hallucinations or wolves. but the skeptic is bringing up hallucinations without seeing any LSD lying around, without seeing any goats outside, without any reason to suspect a hallucination in this case.
this whole thing is silly and is pretty much how everyone thinks.
the cow farmer should say:
i'm not sure i have 3 cows. but i think i do. i saw 3 cows yesterday, and the day before. my family and i harvest their milk and it fills up the right number of bottles for 3 cows. it takes my son 3 times longer to clean up their poop than when we had 1 cow. they eat pizza like normal cows, not sushi like goats always want.this way he's explaining why he thinks he has 3 cows, and asking for new information or criticism that would let him change his mind to a better idea.
do you have any argument i'm hallucinating? do you know something i don't, which should change my view? do you have a criticism of the idea that i have 3 cows? not a reason it isn't guaranteed, but a reason it's actually wrong?
if the skeptic doesn't have any info or criticism like that, then 3 cows is the best guess (idea). even if the wolves attacked and they don't know that, it was still the best guess given the information available.
I heard from a mutual friend that you refer to urself as the best philosopher in the world, but all the articles I've read that you've written only discuss very basic philosophy, and often don't really engage properly with the ideas.
Where can I find your more serious philosophical works?