Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!ma188saa
From: ma188saa@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Steve Bloch)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Uncertainty in life
Message-ID: <3978@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>
Date: Sun, 24-May-87 21:47:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc3.3978
Posted: Sun May 24 21:47:27 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 25-May-87 04:47:20 EDT
References: <6762@mimsy.UUCP> <13261@watmath.UUCP>
Reply-To: ma188saa@sdcc3.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Steve Bloch)
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 23
Keywords: Heisenberg certain Descartes
Summary: Descartes blew it this time.

In article <13261@watmath.UUCP> erhoogerbeet@watmath.UUCP (Edwin (Deepthot)) writes:
>Though I am certainly no philosopher, I seem to remember this (heard from 
>someone about Descartes' ramblings).
>
>Let us assume that there is nothing that can be known for certain. Then,
>a contradiction is reached because we have taken as certain the hypothesis
>that nothing can be known for certain. Therefore, it must be so that you can
>know something for certain.
>
Did Descartes really say that? I'm disappointed.  Let X, in the
following sentence, be "nothing can be known for certain."
The truth of X does not imply that anybody KNOWS X.
(In the same way, there could well be a God or three without anyone
knowing for certain that such existed.)
Descartes should have been familiar enough with the difference
between truth and knowledge to realize that.

Playing Devil's advocate, I guess I should point out that a
statement which inherently cannot be proven is necessarily
irrelevant.  If X cannot be proven, then ~X cannot be disproven, so
~X is consistent with any possible universe and so tells us nothing
about which possible universe we're in.  (I would use this on
Creationists if I could get one to hold still long enough.)