One less reason to despise evolution

[gluadys]

I strongly feel that if one said: I know it without any reservation, then it has a sense of pride in it. Chances (>90% or even >99.9%) are, the person does NOT completely know.

Does it not depend on what one is claiming to know and the context in which one is claiming it?

I think one can be legitimately challenged to reveal the basis of one's claimed knowledge. If I claim to know, but all I can do is assert the claim, then my claim is empty. But if I can show the evidence or the logic or both, the claim is legitimate.

I claim to have 100% certain knowledge that I have given birth to two children. I don't think it has anything to do with pride that I make that claim. It is simply a matter of fact.

On what basis would you challenge my certainty in this case?

 

[juvenissun]

I claim to have 100% certain knowledge that I have given birth to two children. I don't think it has anything to do with pride that I make that claim. It is simply a matter of fact.

On what basis would you challenge my certainty in this case?

This is an example of messy argument.

If you followed the thread, you can see my argument is about the certainty of interpretation or explanation, not about data.

I do know I ate two eggs this morning.

I do see the data, by which the story of evolution is told. But I do not know if the story is true. "chances" are that it is not true (or true).

 

[gluadys]

This is an example of messy argument.

If you followed the thread, you can see my argument is about the certainty of interpretation or explanation, not about data.

I do know I ate two eggs this morning.

So, you agree you were overreaching when you said we can't know anything.

We can know data.

What you are really claiming is that we can't interpret the data.

But I think you are still overreaching.

It would be fair to say that no interpretation can be asserted with 100% confidence. But there is still a significant difference between an interpretation that can be asserted with 99.9% confidence and one that can only be asserted with 65% confidence.

And there is a significant difference between both of these and an interpretation which has been falsified--shown to have 0% truth value.

I do see the data, by which the story of evolution is told. But I do not know if the story is true. "chances" are that it is not true (or true).

Well, this is just an admission of ignorance. And you have made that admission before. Of course, since you do not understand evolution, you don't see how the data and the story fit together. The remedy is simple.

Learn what the theory of evolution is and how it explains the data, is supported by the data, and successfully predicts new data.

When you have done that---and not before--you can assess how close to the truth it is.

Meanwhile you can stop digressing into discussions of pride when people who have already done that claim some knowledge that you don't have yet.