Cheers for the reply you marvel
So its more to do with a thing that 'may' happen or be the case, rather than a thing that is 'likely' to be the case. You do not know all the alternatives or have all the data.
However, you would call someone crazy for believing they were able to jump in water and not get wet - under the previously mentioned conditions.
This statement seems to conflict. Why would you assume that person is insane?
It's not in conflict.
There is exactly 0 zero data to suggest any outcome other then getting wet.
There is an inumerable amount of data to suggest the opposite.
When all the evidence leads to X and no evidence leads to Y, it would be irrational to conclude Y instead of X. Or crazy.
Even if Y turns out to be correct anyway. See, having a rational belief doesn't necessarily mean that it is an accurate belief. Just like having irrational beliefs doesn't mean, by definition, that the belief is wrong.
How rational a belief is, has to do with how it is motivated. If all the data at your disposal supports your conclusion and no data is present to think otherwise, then it is rational to accept it.
There was a time when the brightest people on earth believe the sun orbitted the earth. If your only information is "
it comes up there, moves accross the sky and then sets there..." then concluding a geocentrism-like model is a rational position. In fact, if that truelly is your ONLY information, it would be even irrational to believe heliocentrism....
So yes, I feel fine stating that I'ld call a person crazy for believing that jumping in a pool will not result in getting wet. While at the same time recognizing that I can't
prove otherwise.
Lets get more creative. Lets look at hot water. Say you were at a residence. There is a boiling pot of water and a toddler. The toddler is standing on a chair and about to reach into the boiling water.
Would you stop the toddler from reaching in? Is there any circumstance you would assume the toddler would not get injured and let the situation play out? if no/yes why?
I think I alreade adequatly explained it in the previous example.
Obviously I would stop the toddler, for the reasons mentioned above: everything I
know about heat, boiling water and skin informs me that such an action will not end well.
So, again, for all
practical intents and purposes, I'll call it a certainty that it won't end well.
Not an
absolute certainty, because that would require proof. And I can't prove what will or will not happen. I can only say what is the extremely likely outcome, given the information I have. It's so extremely likely, that we might just as well call it a fact.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to comprehend for you.