Logik wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 4:07 pm
-1- wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:55 pm
According to your definition there are no degrees of certainty. Absolute is absolute.
Well, no. According to my definition certainty is on a continuum. And "Absolute certainty" means the same as "maximum certainty".
-1- wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:55 pm
I used certainty similarly in the sense of the second quote: certainty lies along a spectrum.
Of course, but precisely because certainty is on a continuum the question of drawing lines arises. Where is "enough"?
It's hard to answer such questions because more is always better e.g towards "absolute certainty" is always better.
Which is how I interpret VA's treatment of ideals. They are like the horizon. In that direction, but never to be reached.
I actually did not pose the "enough" limit, or questioned it. I posed that CI gives no more certainty of a stable moral society than the set-up and execution of a prisoner's dilemma. I assumed that the "enough" would be above the certainty level of the prisoner's dilemma for providing a society in which everyone behaves above that hypothetical and yet undefined level in moral conduct.
So, what do you think is "enough" here, Logik? What level of buy-in (expressed in percentages of those who comply vs the whole (compliant and non-compliant individuals)) is sufficient, and if it is, what is the sufficiency defined as?
Thou seest, once one goes away from natural language, then he gets bogged down by details of insurmountable problems.
Sticking to natural language has the advantage of not being swallowed up by a twister that detaches one from the practical point at hand. For instance, every person on the Earth will understand your concept when you say "god". But the moment you try to pin god to a definition, you are lost.
My stance is that we ought not to hold the other to completely strict and rigorous definitions of words they use. Many words have many different definitions, and all words actually do. Sometimes the difference in meanings is subtle. What I wish to propose is to avoid the need to define words, unless it's absolutely necessary.
Case in point, "certainty". Your first challenge was this word's definition; you cited concepts from inferential statistics. Your second challenge was the level (what is enough). Then you retracted your first challenge, claiming you mean the same thing as I.
If that is so truly, then maybe you only needed to challenge "enough", and leave the definition of certainty alone, not even bringing it up as issue.