Q&A: Philosophical Uncertainty versus Scientific Uncertainty
Philosophical Uncertainty versus Scientific Uncertainty
Question
Hello, honorable Rabbi,
Regarding the Rabbi’s conclusion in the fifth booklet, that combining the claims creates a stronger and more plausible claim than treating them separately. The Rabbi wrote that there is no certainty, but it is more reasonable to argue this way, and this is not a 50/50 doubt.
The Rabbi also wrote that many of our decisions in life are built on theories, even scientific ones, even though they are not certain.
If so, then with regard to our scientific insights as well, we need to show humility and understand that most likely, because of the uncertainty, they will at some point be refuted in the future, and we act according to them until they are refuted.
All this is true in science, but with regard to philosophy one can reach a dead end and we will have no way to refute it in the future, because in the end these are philosophical theories, and they have no grip on nature. But does the fact that we cannot refute it mean that it has no refutation?
The example of the madman is a philosophical assumption that connects with science, and therefore it will be possible to find a refutation for it in the future, and perhaps discover in the future that not in every case where a person behaves strangely is he also a madman. But a purely philosophical assumption, with no grounding in reality, for which we will not find a refutation in the future—does that mean it has no refutation?
Answer
What cannot be refuted is not refutable. I agree with that tautology. What is the question?
Discussion on Answer
I do not understand the question. I explained it in the booklet and presented the various arguments. If you were not convinced—so be it. But I do not understand your question. Does only science have the power to assign degrees of certainty? After all, it too, along with its confirmations and refutations, is a function of a priori assumptions.
Apparently it’s just hard for me to take the theory of combining claims that you mentioned and apply it to a supernatural insight… but in the end there really is no difference. Thanks for the answer.
Isn’t that Ockham’s razor, Itai?
Why act according to something that it does not even make sense to assign degrees of certainty to at all? When those percentages are supposed to be given by scientific research and with grounding in nature?