# Certainty and Knowledge
**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045
**Category:** Elliot Temple
**Tags:** bot, curiosity-blog
**Created:** [April 27, 2025, 4:53pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045 "2025-04-27T16:53:55Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 4:53pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/1 "2025-04-27T16:53:55Z")
* * *
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at [https://curi.us/2580-certainty-and-knowledge](https://curi.us/2580-certainty-and-knowledge)
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 6:12pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/2 "2025-04-27T18:12:24Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> A major cause of skepticism is seeking infallible certainty but being disappointed and failing to get it. If you seek 100% certainty as a requirement of knowledge, then you will get a bad outcome: you’ll fail and give up on knowledge or you’ll think you succeeded and close your mind to debate and criticism.
I remember I watched a YouTube video, which I can’t find now, where a guy told how he gave up on philosophy. He was a fan of Descartes’ philosophy and was absolutely certain of its truth. He then got in a debate with another philosopher who absolutely refuted Descartes’ philosophy. The guy was devastated and thought knowledge in philosophy was impossible to get.
It’s quite a while since I watched that video and my memory was fuzzy. He was definitely a fan of Descartes so maybe someone will find it sometime and link it here.
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 6:35pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/3 "2025-04-27T18:35:49Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> A grain of sand or drop of water contains vast amounts of information because it contains vast numbers of atoms that could be measured in multiple different ways. Most information isn’t knowledge.
But something like the radius of the moon is knowledge because it was useful in mathematical calculations that we needed to do to land on the moon.
When I wrote about useless information here:
> [@Actually Thinking YouTube Videos](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/actually-thinking-youtube-videos/2035/52):
>
> > [@Actually Thinking YouTube Videos](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/actually-thinking-youtube-videos/2035/51):
> >
> > What is information when it is not useful then?
>
> An example: how many grains of sand there are in a beach.
I wondered whether something like the radius of the moon was knowledge. The reason was that it’s a particular fact, like how many grains of sand there are on a beach, and not a general concept. I mostly associate knowledge with abstract concepts, but I don’t actually think that’s all it is.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 6:42pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/4 "2025-04-27T18:42:44Z")
In general, if anyone seeks out a fact, then it’s knowledge. Measurements about the moon have been useful in lots of ways. There are problems they help solve. Measuring the height and weight of people, and many other physical objects, has also been useful. All sorts of mundane pieces of data, like the locations of streets or stores, or the sizes and weights products for sale, are useful.
Most facts that are knowledge aren’t part of philosophical or scientific knowledge, though moon measurements are part of science.
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 6:51pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/5 "2025-04-27T18:51:03Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Are incorrect ideas knowledge? Broadly, yes.
This was also something I wondered about in my recent discussion. I was leaning toward yes. But I wondered whether it had to be correct for some very limited context and goal to be considered knowledge.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> If a human thought something was a good idea, then it’s not going to be anything like random noise; it will actually have a lot of order, structure, correctness and usefulness to it even if it’s quite badly wrong with lots of big mistakes.
This convinces me that yes, they are. It’s like Paley’s problem, we don’t have to explain the arbitrary in nature, but the things with order and structure, the things with appearance of design, are the things we need to explain. And those things are knowledge.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 6:57pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/6 "2025-04-27T18:57:01Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> But I wondered whether it had to be correct for some very limited context and goal to be considered knowledge.
That is a reasonable way to look at it. Incorrect ideas generally are correct for some limited context or goal.
There are complications like CF points out that literally every idea is correct for infinitely many goals and also incorrect for infinitely many goals. So advanced technical analysis of these topics is tricky. But a more common sense understanding is mostly fine.
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 7:01pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/7 "2025-04-27T19:01:25Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Either you won’t debate or you will view debates as public performances where the wrong and bad people can be corrected,
Or you can have private debate where the goal is purely to convert heretic. Minor detail.
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 8:30pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/8 "2025-04-27T20:30:21Z")
How much did you write this article as a response to the recent discussions? Was it very redundant for you to write or was it valuable to you?
Either way I found it very helpful and I appreciate it.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 9:12pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/9 "2025-04-27T21:12:42Z")
I wrote it yesterday in one sitting. I did light editing and added a couple paragraphs today. Yes it was in response to recent discussions. Discussions often give me some ideas about what people don’t understand and what would be helpful to write about.
It wasn’t particularly valuable or redundant for me. For me it’s no big deal. It wasn’t very hard and didn’t take very long. I write a lot and I find I get a lot of value from writing overall, but most of the individual things don’t stand out as big contributors of value.
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [April 27, 2025, 9:15pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/10 "2025-04-27T21:15:14Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> I wrote it yesterday in one sitting.
This was good for me to know. I find that impressive.
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2025, 1:14am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/11 "2025-04-28T01:14:37Z")
Bravo. I really enjoyed reading this. Objectivism’s view on this makes more sense to me now. Thanks for sharing it!
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> > [@Elliot](#):
> >
> > I wrote it yesterday in one sitting.
>
> This was good for me to know. I find that impressive.
Me too!
My favourite part was:
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> If you seek 100% certainty as a requirement of knowledge, then you will get a bad outcome: you’ll fail and give up on knowledge or you’ll think you succeeded and close your mind to debate and criticism.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 28, 2025, 1:32am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/12 "2025-04-28T01:32:24Z")
> [@LMD](#):
>
> > [@ActiveMind](#):
> >
> > > [@Elliot](#):
> > >
> > > I wrote it yesterday in one sitting.
> >
> > This was good for me to know. I find that impressive.
>
> Me too!
I guess you guys will want to know how long it takes too.
My max speed for similar writing is around 50words/min (3000/hr). I didn’t time it but I’d guess that essay took around an hour (1550 words first draft), or around 25words/min.
Editing much will reduce speed a lot.
It’s important to be able to comfortably touch-type, without it being distracting, at least double the speed you want to write essays at so you can spend over half the time thinking without typing. Faster typing also helps get ideas written down in quick bursts when you have a few thoughts in quick succession, so you don’t have to remember as much or switch to taking quick notes to avoid forgetting stuff.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2025, 5:06pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/13 "2025-04-30T17:06:01Z")
@actually_thinking Does this article answer some of your questions and concerns?
---
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [May 2, 2025, 9:41pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/14 "2025-05-02T21:41:08Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Certainty is, by standard dictionary definition, knowing for 100% sure that it’s absolutely impossible that you could have made a mistake.
Standard dictionary definition? What does that mean? Is it what dictionaries use right now?
What does 100% sure mean? Percentage of what?
100 non mistakes out of a 100?
People get stuff wrong all the time. How do they no they made no mistakes at all? People sound so sure sometimes tho
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> This contradicts fallibilism which says you can’t get a 100% guarantee that any thought process contains no mistakes.
Contradicts? I dont even use that irl when talking. I try but it sounds smug.
You cant get a guarantee? Even by saying 2+2=4? There has to be something missing if i cant guarantee a thought process contains no mistakes
---
### Author:  [@actually\_thinking](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/actually_thinking)
#### Post date: [May 3, 2025, 6:35pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/15 "2025-05-03T18:35:37Z")
I appreciate you taking the time to address the issues that I brought up. I realize now that there was no evasion on your part and am happy to assert that. I still, however, see problems with these arguments.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> there’s nothing wrong with fallible or conjectural knowledge and in fact that is what all the scientific success in human history used (since infallibility is impossible, science must always have used fallible knowledge).
“Fallibility” is a fact of human existence but CR (and CF) treat it as a virtue. Fallibility is not the foundation of reason, rationality is. Defining your method of knowledge by your weakness (fallibility) rather than your means of knowledge (reason) is philosophically inverted. CR makes error its centerpiece; Objectivism makes identity its foundation. To treat all ideas as mere conjecture is to erode the distinction between knowledge and opinion, truth and error, certainty and doubt.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> human sight and memory are both fallible, people hallucinate or get confused, people sometimes make mistakes about whether they are awake or dreaming, aliens with advanced technologies could interfere, or we could be living in a simulation and the computer programming controlling the simulation could interfere. These things aren’t literally impossible.
This implies that we should never fully commit to ideas, always being tentative, provisional, “open to correction”—but Rand would call this moral cowardice in the face of knowledge. If one has validated an idea by objective means, in the full context of available evidence and logic, then one ought to hold it as knowledge—not with arbitrary dogmatism, but with earned confidence. That is certainty. There is no reason to hold the door open to the possibility that aliens have programmed everything to fool us, or to some other otherworldly explanation.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> However, even if we had an idea that is the absolute perfect truth with zero errors, we would have no way to know that with certainty.
If I am to cross the street, I must be certain that no cars are coming that might hit me. I use my reason (as an integration of my perceptions with an understanding of my fundamental nature as a human and all that entails) to be certain that it is safe to cross. My goal is my survival. I can be certain if I am alive. If I cross the street unscathed and unthreatened then this gives further validation that my perception and reason can be trusted with certainty. Invoking a potential alien or hallucination as a reason to be uncertain is irrational.
I invoked moral courage earlier here and I think that the main disagreement lies in just this. I believe (as I learned from Rand) that the rational is the moral and the practical. There is no divide between the practical and the moral and the rational. CR focuses only on the practical and acts as if there is no moral dimension to knowledge. Knowledge is grasping the facts of reality which is essential to flourishing. There is no point to knowledge if not for flourishing. And living well is inseparable from living morally. And to live morally one must live rationally (meaning without contradiction in your long-term self-interest). I am certain of this.
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2025, 12:53am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/16 "2025-05-04T00:53:23Z")
> [@actually\_thinking](#):
>
> To treat all ideas as mere conjecture is to erode the distinction between knowledge and opinion, truth and error, certainty and doubt.
CF talks a lot about rationality methods, how to think and error correct better. That’s different from random and arbitrary ideas, if that’s what you mean by “opinion”.
What do you think about the connection Elliot made with CR’s “fallible/conjectural/tentative knowledge” and Objectivism’s “contextual certainty”?
> [@actually\_thinking](#):
>
> This implies that we should never fully commit to ideas,
CF stresses decisiveness. It tells us how to be decisive with fallible knowledge.
> [@actually\_thinking](#):
>
> This implies that we should never fully commit to ideas, always being tentative, provisional, “open to correction”
If you’re fully committed to an idea will you refuse to consider that it could be wrong? Will you only debate that idea in order to change other people’s minds? What happens when you meet someone who’s **certain** of an idea that contradicts an idea you’re certain of? Suppose the other person was an objectivist and used the same rationality methods as you did (at the very least you both believe in the same epistemology and rationality methods).
> [@actually\_thinking](#):
>
> but Rand would call this moral cowardice in the face of knowledge.
Would Rand say that of avoiding judgments, decisions and claims of knowledge? Yes, I think so. But to examine criticisms of your convictions and considering that they could be false? No, I don’t think so. Philosophy: Who Needs It? (bold mine for emphasis, italic are Rand’s):
> What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an “open mind,” but an _active mind_—a mind able and **eagerly willing to examine ideas** , but to examine them _critically._ […]
> If you keep an active mind, you will discover […] that every challenge you examine will strengthen your convictions,
> No, you will not have to keep your mind eternally open to the task of examining every new variant of the same old falsehoods. You will discover that they are variants or attacks on certain philosophical essentials […]. You will learn to recognize at a glance a given theory’s stand on these essentials, and to reject the attacks without lengthy consideration
She didn’t say you could establish infallible certainty and then ignore all criticisms of that idea.
In a way she did actually say you should examine every criticism, she just gave a shortcut to quickly reach conclusions on criticisms with only small variations from other criticisms.
In what I cut out I think Rand problematically used “invulnerable” and “unassailable certainty” which sure do sound like infallibilism. I don’t think she meant infallibilism given her other writings though.
[Certainty—Ayn Rand Lexicon](https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/certainty.html):
> Infallibility is not a precondition of knowing what one does know, of firmness in one’s convictions, and of loyalty to one’s values.
CR agrees.
> [@actually\_thinking](#):
>
> I use my reason […] to be certain that it is safe to cross.
> [@actually\_thinking](#):
>
> Invoking a potential alien or hallucination as a reason to be uncertain is irrational.
CF would say it’s irrational to say potential aliens or hallucination refutes the idea of walking across the street. CF would say you use reason to decide/conclude that it’s safe to cross the street. (Depends on context ofc).
---
### Author:  [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2025, 5:03am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/17 "2025-05-04T05:03:30Z")
> [@actually\_thinking](#):
>
> “Fallibility” is a fact of human existence but CR (and CF) treat it as a virtue. Fallibility is not the foundation of reason, rationality is. Defining your method of knowledge by your weakness (fallibility) rather than your means of knowledge (reason) is philosophically inverted. CR makes error its centerpiece; Objectivism makes identity its foundation.
What does the criticism that something is “philosophically inverted” mean?
Also, why do you think it’s important what “the foundation of reason” is?
Our fallibility seems to be of central importance because knowing that we could always be making a mistake is relevant context for all human endeavours. It’s especially important for designing rational methods that produce knowledge. The method of scientific testing is built around weeding out errors that we could’ve made. It’s about being really thorough about your reasoning before you make conclusions. I think making error a central problem to be solved is a good idea.
> [@actually\_thinking](#):
>
> To treat all ideas as mere conjecture is to erode the distinction between knowledge and opinion, truth and error, certainty and doubt.
Our ideas being conjectural doesn’t imply that we can’t be decisive in our evaluations of them.
In fact, it seems like their character as conjecture makes evaluations of them possible at all. If they weren’t conjecture, if something wasn’t just a guess, what would it be? Already known to be true or false? But what room does that leave for evaluating them?
---
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [May 5, 2025, 3:46am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/18 "2025-05-05T03:46:49Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Fallibilism isn’t skepticism.
Not skepticism? Im looking up what skepticism means
Ox languages:
> a [skeptical](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=601b0517c7361365&sxsrf=AHTn8zplywIcod5gfogsamzYCZ9qh3bo0w:1746416583587&q=skeptical&si=APYL9bsF-Mq-fXaAyJcIV7GbwI1qmOnc6ZvunSr6iV2w77p7bJQAJy0l3MZ5hY05w0XNSLDvomLSTf8_3EwTwkAJL_l37VRSmN4SFT6ikCDA5eW3PS-t1v8%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiW0uDgtIuNAxV3kO4BHbWbCLUQyecJegQIRBAR) attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
From merriam webster:
> 1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
>
> 2
> a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
>
> b: the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of [skeptics](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skeptics)
I think the difference between skepticism and fallibillism is that one doesn’t doubt their knowledge. Like it’s knowledge why would one doubt that it works? It worked. Unless it didn’t
Edit: In fallibilism one doesn’t doubt their knowledge. Thats what I meant my bad
---
### Author:  [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)
#### Post date: [May 5, 2025, 12:31pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/19 "2025-05-05T12:31:50Z")
Skepticism is used differently in philosophy from colloquial speech. Colloquially it means a general skeptical attitude, not being gullible, doubting a lot, that sort of stuff. In philosophy it usually means the denial of the possibility of knowledge.
> **[Skepticism](https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/skepticism.html)**
>
> The Ayn Rand Lexicon: This mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism is
> compiled from Ayn Rand’s statements on some 400 topics in philosophy,
> economics, psychology, and history.
> In the history of philosophy—with some very rare exceptions—epistemological theories have . . . taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism).
You should check out the Ayn Rand Lexicon when looking up philosophical terms. Since you’re a Rand fan, right?
> [@Dface](#):
>
> In fallibilism one doesn’t doubt their knowledge.
I don’t truly doubt that I have knowledge at all. I believe I have lots of knowledge. But I could doubt any one piece of knowledge since nothing is guaranteed to not have an error, which is what fallibilism says.
---
### Author:  [@Dface](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Dface)
#### Post date: [May 5, 2025, 4:30pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045/20 "2025-05-05T16:30:10Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> In philosophy it usually means the denial of the possibility of knowledge.
Oh “denial” sounds more concrete like it describes whats actually happening. My question to a skeptic would be what is knowledge to them?
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> Since you’re a Rand fan, right?
Oh yeah i like Rand’s books. I didnt think the Lexicon as a good resource before. ill check it out more often
> [@ActiveMind](#):
>
> But I could doubt any one piece of knowledge since nothing is guaranteed to not have an error, which is what fallibilism says.
Ahh i find it hard to think of this intuitively. Like, in falibilism, one could doubt a piece of knowledge and it does not equal skepticism
[Next page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/certainty-and-knowledge/2045.md?page=2)